|MpnuinimuiiiiuinwuuiiiuimiiuHiiiiiiyHintiiiiiuniimtuiiiimn»(HniiuiiuHiiiii 


SCIE 


m  RmERummm£c&A 


iiiiiiiiiniiiii 


i 


r 

11 

! 

1' 

tihvavy  of  trhe  t:heolo0ical  ^tminavy 

PRINCETON  .  NEW  JERSEY 

•/••  vK' 

FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 

REVEREND  CHARLES  ROSENBURY  ERDMAN 
D.D.,  LL.D. 

BL  2775  .A549  1909 
Anderson,  Robert,  1841-1918 
A  doubter's  doubts  about 
science  and  religion 


WavkB  bg  tl|p  samp  Autl|or : 

THE  GOSPEL  AND  ITS  MINISTRY.     A  Handbook 

of  Evangelical  Truth.    Cloth.        .        .        ,        net,  fo.75 

PSEUDO-CRITICISM;    OR.   THE    HIGHER    CRITI- 
CISM AND   ITS  COUNTERFEIT.    Cloth.        net,      .75 

"  FOR  US  MEN  ;"    Chapters  on  Redemption  Truths, 

Cloth net,     i.oo 

"  THE  WAY  ;"  Chapters  on  the  Christian  Ivife.  Cloth. 


THE  SIXPENCE  OF  GOD.    Cloth. 

HUMAN  DESTINY.     Cloth 

DANIEL  IN  THE  CRITIC'S  DEN      Cloth. 

THE  BUDDHA  OF  CHRISTENDOM.    Cloth. 

THE    COMING    PRINCE;     or,     THE    SEVENTY 
WEEKS  OF  DANIEL.    Cloth.        .        .        .     net, 

THE    BIBLE   AND    MODERN    CRITICISM  (with   a 
Preface  by  the  Bishop  of  Durham).    Cloth.        net, 


net, 

1.00 

net. 

1.00 

net. 

1.00 

net. 

1.25 

net, 

1-50 

^^^UaiJALS.^ 


ubnut 


Bit  Snbrrt  Aniirrs0tt,  KMM..  ^MM. 


New  York  : 
GOSPEL  PUBLISHING  HOUSE 

D.  T.  BASS,  Mgr. 

54   West    22d    Street 


Copyright,  1909,  by 
The  Gospel  Publishing  House 


Printing  by 

FRANCIS  E.  FITCH 

47  Broad  Street 

New  York 


prpfarp 


A  DOUBTER'S  Doubts  about  Science  and  Relig- 
^^  ion  was  first  published  anonymously,  at  a 
time  when  the  author  was  Assistant  Commissioner 
of  Police  and  Head  of  the  Criminal  Investigation 
Department,  at  Scotland  Yard  (London).  In  the 
original  edition  a  brief  prefatory  chapter  explained 
the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  book;  and  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  it  may  opportunely  be  quoted 
here : 

"We  have  all  heard  of  'the  confidence  trick.' 
With  unfailing  certainty  it  comes  up  again  and 
again  in  our  police  reports,  and  we  always  read 
the  story  with  mingled  feelings  of  wonder,  amuse- 
ment and  pity.  Nor  is  it  merely  the  rustic  and  the 
tourist  in  the  streets  of  London  who  fall  victims 
to  such  frauds.  By  an  artifice  quite  as  silly  and 
transparent  one  of  our  greatest  city  houses  was  not 
long  ago  defrauded  of  £20,000  in  gold.  The  details 
of  the  swindle  would  be  delightful  reading,  but  to 
divulge  them  would  be  a  breach  of  faith;  for  the 
merchants  preferred  to  bear  their  loss,  rather  than 
incur  the  ridicule  which  publicity  would  have 
brought  on  them.     But  there  are  developments  of 

5 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

the  'confidence  trick'  of  which  the  police  court  takes 
no  cognizance,  and  where  the  victim's  loss  cannot 
be  estimated  at  a  money  value.  Simple  folk  are 
every  day  imposed  upon  by  deceptions  just  as 
shameless,  palmed  off  upon  them  in  the  name  of 
religion.  And  not  of  religion  only,  but  of  science 
also.  And  may  not  a  sceptic  do  good  service  here? 
Is  not  this  work  for  a  high-class  detective?  It 
cannot  be,  surely,  but  that  some  at  least  will  be 
found  to  appreciate  an  honest  effort  to  expose  such 
frauds." 

Of  the  present  volume  the  latter  half  is  entirely 
new.  And  some  of  the  earlier  chapters  have  been 
revised ;  but  those  which  deal  with  the  philosophical 
systems  of  Charles  Darwin  and  Herbert  Spencer 
remain  unchanged.  It  may  be  thought,  perhaps, 
that  the  criticisms  they  contain  are  out  of  date, 
now  that  Spencerism  is  dead,  and  Darwinism  dis- 
credited. But  though  biological  theories  which 
reigned  supreme  a  few  years  ago  have  been  aban- 
doned or  modified  by  "men  of  light  and  leading," 
their  influence  still  prevails  with  the  general 
public  and  in  response  to  appeals  from  several 
quarters  the  chapters  in  question  are  here  repro- 
duced. 

As  the  book  is  addressed  to  men  of  the  world, 
it  speaks  from  the  standpoint  of  scepticism — the 
true   scepticism    which    tests    everything,    not    the 

6 


Preface 

sham  sort  which  credulously  accepts  anything  that 
seems  to  discredit  the  Bible.  If,  for  example,  the 
Bible  taught  evolution,  it  may  be  averred  that 
evolution  would  be  scoffed  by  many  who  now  cling 
to  it  with  a  childlike  faith  worthy  of  the  infant 
class  in  the  Sunday  School.  With  the  true  sceptic 
it  is  merely  a  philosophic  theory. 

The  reader  will  thus  be  prepared  to  find  that 
destructive  criticism  is  in  the  main  the  author's 
method.  To  some  the  book  will  seem  unsatis- 
factory on  this  account,  and  yet  they  must 
recognise  the  importance  of  thus  refuting  the 
claims  which  infidelity  makes  to  superior  enlight- 
enment. 

Others  may  think  that  in  these  pages  the  diffi- 
culties which  perplex  the  Bible  student  are 
dismissed  too  lightly.  Here  the  author  must  either 
accept  the  criticism,  or  risk  a  charge  of  egotism  if 
he  appeals  to  his  other  books  in  proof  that  he 
neither  ignores  difficulties  nor  attempts  to  mini- 
mise them. 

Were  it  not  for  encouragement  received  from 
one  of  the  author's  most  valued  American  friends, 
this  re-issue  of  A  Doubter's  Doubts  might  never 
have  appeared ;  and  at  his  request  it  is  that  this 
American  edition  preserves  the  old  title. 

R.  A. 

*  The     corresponding     English     Edition     (published     by     Hodder     and 
Stoughton,  London)   is  entitled  In  Defence:  A  Plea  for  the  Faith. 

7 


CHontPttta 

CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 
HOW  DID  LIFE  BEGIN  ?.....  13 

Creation  or  evolution?  Method  of  the  inquiry.  The 
evidence  for  evolution.  Abiogenesis.  Huxley,  Tyn- 
dall  and  Lord  Kelvin  quoted.  Herbert  Spencer 
cited  in  refutation  of  it.  The  original  life-germ : 
its  infinite  capacities.  Science  leads  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  God.     The  alternative. 

CHAPTER  n 

THE   DARWINIAN    THEORY       .  .  ...  22 

Mark  Twain  quoted.  "Who  made  God?"  Lord 
Kelvin's  dictum — "Science  affirms  creative  power." 
What  kind  of  God  then  shall  we  own?  Darwin's 
hypothesis.  His  statement  of  it.  Degeneration  as 
an  alternative  hypothesis.  Evolution  fails  to  account 
for  the  moral  and  spiritual  nature  of  man.  Herbert 
Spencer  cited  against  it.  A  practical  test.  Karl  von 
Hartmann  on   Darwinism. 


CHAPTER  HI 

HERBERT    SPENCER's    SCHEME  .  ...  34 

Special  creation  versii'S  evolution.  Spencer  quoted 
and  answered.  His  mistakes  as  to  theological 
difficulties.  The  biblical  scheme  for  the  restoration 
of  creation.  "No  one  ever  saw  a  special  creation." 
Spencer's  theme  atheistical. 

CHAPTER  IV 

HAVE   WE  A   REVELATION?      .....  43 

The  function  of  true  scepticism.  The  existence  of 
God  creates  a  presumption  in  favour  of  a  revela- 
tion. But  we  must  guard  against  fraud  and  super- 
stition. Is  Christianity  a  Divine  revelation?  The 
question  discussed.  The  claims  of  Rome  and  sacer- 
dotalism. (Concluding  note  on  Article  XXVIII. 
and  the  meaning  of  a  "sacrament"), 
9 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


IS   CHRISTIANITY   DIVINE, 


CHAPTER  V 

PAGE 

51 


59 


68 


Goldwin  Smith  on  the  Reformation  and  the  Bible. 
Notice  of  the  theological  school  which  ignores  the 
connection  between  Christianity  and  Judaism.  The 
testimony  of  Christ  to  the  Old  Testament.  The 
Kenosis  theology  discussed. 


CHAPTER  VI 
MR.  A.  J.  Balfour's  scheme  .... 
The  theses  of  A  Defence  of  Philosophic  Doubt. 
Discussion  of  the  scheme.  Tyndall  on  "religious 
feeling."  The  argument  against  miracles.  The 
question  discussed.  The  testimony  of  Scripture. 
Settling  the  issues.  The  conflict  is  between  Scripture 
and  scientific  theories,  not  facts. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   COSMOGONY  OF   GENESIS  .... 

The  controversy  on  the  subject.  Mr,  Gladstone's 
Dawn  of  Creation  and  Worship.  The  failure  of 
Mr.  Huxley's  attack  upon  it.  Their  reference  to 
Prof.  Dana,  and  his  decision.  The  author's  chal- 
lenge to  Mr.  Huxley  in  The  Times.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's thesis  holds  the  field.  The  materialistic 
scientists.  Herbert  Spencer's  statement  of  evolu- 
tion.    The  teaching  of  Genesis  i. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

"an  agnostic's  apology"  ....  80 

Sir  Leslie  Stephen's  treatise.  The  fallacy  of  his 
scheme  exposed.  His  method  of  discussion.  Refer- 
ence to  Newman.  His  position  is  infidel.  His  chal- 
lenge stated  and  answered  by  the  Resurrection. 
The  evidence  for  the  Resurrection.  Dr.  Harnack's 
view.  The  universality  of  superstition  a  proof  of 
the  truth  of  Genesis. 

10 


Contents 


CHAPTER  IX 

PAGE 
THE  IRRATIONALISM    OF   INFIDELITY  ...  91 

Mill's  testimony  to  Christ.  The  untenableness  of 
the  infidel  position.  It  is  refuted  by  their  own  testi- 
mony to  the  New  Testament  writers.  The  miracle 
of  feeding  the  5,000.  The  evidence  for  such  miracles 
is  complete.  Voltaire's  infidelity  explained.  The 
honest  sceptic  entitled  to  respect,  especially  in  view 
of  the  religious  apostasy  of  the  day.  Dean  Alford 
on  the  Christian  Church. 


CHAPTER  X 

A  sceptic's  plea  for  faith  ....  100 

Lord  Kelvin's  testimony  and  advice.  Chrysostom's 
testimony  to  the  Scriptures.  The  "Catholic  Church" 
and  Pascal.  What  God  demands  of  those  who  come 
to  Him.  The  question  discussed.  The  facts  of 
Christianity  attested  by  evidence.  The  crucifixion 
a  proof  that  Christ  claimed  to  be  Divine.  And 
this  creates  a  presumption  that  we  have  authentic 
records  of  His  ministry. 


CHAPTER  XI 

HOW   TO   READ  THE   BIBLE       .....  109 

Prof.  Max  Miiller's  testimony  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Dr.  Harnack's  testimony  to  its  genuineness. 
How  to  begin  Bible  study.  Lord  Cairn's  words 
spoken  to  working  men.  "What  if/,  it  aoout?" 
Prevailing  errors  about  the  Bible,  "[.k'"^- '^ha^1cter 
and  purpose  of  the  Jewish  dispensatio',^  "^.^^^  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount.  The  Lord's  testii.  A  '  o  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  Dean  Alford  quote  '^  lack 
to  Christ." 

11 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


CHAPTER  XII 

PAGE 

THE  "higher  criticism"    .....  120 

The  false  distinguished  from  the  true.  The  false 
a  rationalistic  crusade  against  the  Bible.  Eich- 
horn's  scheme.  Astruc's  discovery.  The  German 
attack  on  the  Pentateuch.  The  mistake  made 
by  English  critics.  The  art  of  writing  in  the 
Mosaic  Age.  The  Hammurabi  code.  Dr.  Driver's 
statement  of  the  case  against  the  Pentateuch. 
Disproved  by  the  Samaritan  Bible.  Robertson 
Smith  and  Prof.  Konig  quoted.  The  problem 
one  of  evidence.  The  ''two  Isaiahs"  hypothesis. 
Jonah  and  the  whale.  The  Kenosis  figment  ex- 
plained and  refuted.  Dr.  Driver's  position.  The 
"New  Theology."    Bishop  of  Durham  quoted. 


APPENDIX 137 

Note      I.  The  Creation. 

Note     II.  The  Book  of  Daniel. 

,  Note  III.  The  Old  Testament  and  the  Critics. 


J2 


CHAPTER    I 

HOW  DID  LIFE  BEGIN f 

THERE  is  one  fact  which  not  even  the 
dreamiest  of  egotists  can  doubt,  and  that  is, 
his  own  existence.  Here  at  least  knowledge  is 
absolute.  That  I  exist  is  certain;  but  how  did  I 
come  to  exist?  I  live;  but  how  did  life  begin? 
The  question  is  one  to  which  every  man  is  bound 
to  find  a  reasonable  answer.  To  say  I  am  descended 
through  generations  numbered  or  innumerable 
from  a  first  man,  is  merely  to  put  the  difficulty  back. 
Where  did  the  first  man  come  from?  Religion 
answers  in  one  word — Creation.  But  this  is  to  cut 
the  knot,  as  it  were,  without  even  an  attempt  to 
untie  it.  It  must  not  be  taken  for  granted  that 
man  is  incapable  of  reasoning  out  the  problem  of 
his  own  existence. 

Between  the  higher  organisms  and  the  lowest 
there  is  a  gulf  which  might  well  be  regarded  as 
impassable.  But  closer  observation  and  fuller 
knowledge  will  disclose  the  fact  that  between  these 
extremes  there  are  unnumbered  gradations  of 
development,  and  that  the  distance  between  the 
several  steps  in  the  series  is  such  as,  in  theory  at 
least,  might  be  passed  by  the  operation  of  known 
laws.  The  problem,  therefore,  which  religion 
would  solve  by  the  one  word  "  creation,"  science 
answers  by  the  one  word  ''evolution."  And  science 
claims  priority  of  audience. 

13 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

But  here  let  us  take  the  place  of  sceptics.  There 
are  no  sceptics  in  the  old  scholastic  sense.  The 
most  ardent  Pyrrhonist,  if  robbed  of  his  purse,  or 
struck  over  the  head  by  a  burglar,  promptly  for- 
gets his  theories,  and  gives  proof  of  his  belief  in 
the  certainty  of  objective  knowledge.  Philosophic 
scepticism,  so  called,  is  merely  a  conceit  of  sham 
philosophers;  it  never  invades  the  sphere  in  which 
a  man's  interests  require  that  he  should  believe 
and  know.  And,  as  Kant  has  aptly  said,  it  is 
"  not  a  permanent  resting-place  for  human  reason." 
But  scepticism  is  not  necessarily  Pyrrhonism. 
Pyrrho  did  not  invent  the  word;  he  only  perverted 
and  degraded  it.  The  6tiETcriitb<i  considers,  reflects, 
hesitates,  doubts.  An  admirable  habit,  surely,  if 
kept  within  due  limits,  but  proof  of  moral  deteri- 
oration if  abnormally  developed. 

Let  us  not  forget  then,  as  we  proceed,  to  reflect, 
hesitate,  doubt;  and,  above  all,  let  us  cast  away 
prejudice.  Let  us  take  the  place  of  free  thinkers 
and  real  sceptics,  not  shams.  Many  people  reserve 
their  scepticism  for  the  sphere  in  which  religion 
is  the  teacher,  while  in  the  presence  of  science  they 
are  as  innocent  and  simple  in  their  receptivity  as 
the  infant  class  in  a  Sunday-School.  We  shall  only 
deceive  ourselves  if  we  begin  by  over-stating  the 
evidence  on  which  the  doctrine  of  evolution  rests. 
It-  must  be  conceded  that  its  foundation  largely 
depends  on  the  researches  of  the  Paleontologist. 
And  here  we  demand  some  direct  proof  that  the 
fossil  remains  belong  to  the  same  economy  or 
system  as  the  living  organisms  we  compare  them 

14 


How  Did  Life  Begin  f 


with.  But  there  is  no  such  proof,  and  it  is  a  ques- 
tion whether  the  presumption  be  not  the  other 
way. 

Let  that  pass,  however,  for  a  more  serious  ques- 
tion claims  attention.  It  may  be  admitted  that  the 
development  of  plants  and  animals  from  their 
simplest  to  their  most  complicated  forms  may  be 
explained  by  natural  causes.  But  this  is  only 
theory.  What  direct  evidence  is  there  that  the 
phenomena  have,  in  fact,  been  thus  produced?  The 
horse  may  have  been  developed  from  a  pig-like 
animal,  and  man  may  be  "descended  from  a  hairy 
quadruped  furnished  with  a  tail  and  pointed  ears."  ^ 
But  what  direct  proof  is  there  that  either  the  horse 
or  the  man  was,  in  fact,  developed  or  evolved  in 
this  way?  The  answer  must  be,  Absolutely  none. 
It  is  a  matter  of  inference  only.^ 

The  prisoner  in  the  dock  may  have  committed 
the  murder  we  are  investigating.  The  theory  of 
his  guilt  will  account  for  all  the  facts.  Therefore 
let  him  be  convicted  and  hanged.  This  sort  of 
argument  would  not  pass  at  the  Old  Bailey.  Men 
are  sceptics  there,  and  free  thinkers.  Proof  that 
the  prisoner  may  have  committed  the  crime  is 
worthless,  unless  we  go  on  to  prove  that  it  could 
not  have  been  committed  by  any  one  else.  But 
with  that  further  proof  the  case  is  clear,  and  the 
accused  goes  to  the  gallows.  And  so  here.  If  the 
facts  of  biology  can  in  no  other  way  be  accounted 
for,  evolution  holds  the  field. 

^  Descent    of   Man,    pt.    ii.    chap.    xxi. 

2  Marvellous  results  are  produced  by  culture,  but  they  are  subject  to 
the  seemingly  inexorable  laws  of  degeneracy  and  the  sterility  of  hybrids. 

15 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

But  are  we  not  forgetting  the  nature  of  the  prob- 
lem to  be  solved?  The  first  and  greatest  question 
relates,  not  to  the  phenomena  of  life,  but  to  its 
origin.  How  did  life  begin?  That  was  the  ques- 
tion we  set  out  with.  And  here  evolution  affords 
no  answer,  and  must  stand  aside.  Let  the  existence 
of  life  be  taken  for  granted,  and  evolution  may 
explain  the  rest.  But  the  sceptic  takes  nothing 
for  granted.  How  did  life  begin?  Science  ans- 
wers  !     In   presence   of  a   question  which   lies 

across  the  threshold  of  knowledge,  science,  the 
very  personification  of  knowledge,  turns  agnostic 
and  is  dumb.  ''  Creation  "  is  the  answer  religion 
gives.  The  rejoinder  which  science  ought  to  make 
is  that  life  first  sprang  out  of  death,  out  of  nothing; 
in  a  word,  abiogenesis. 

And  this  is,  in  fact,  the  answer  which  science 
would  formerly  have  given.  But  the  experiments 
which  at  one  time  seemed  to  establish  the  principle 
of  spontaneous  generation,  have  proved  worthless 
when  subjected  to  severer  tests.  Huxley  admits 
that  ''  the  present  state  of  knowledge  furnishes  us 
with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  not  living." 
With  still  greater  candour,  Tyndall  declares  that 
"  every  attempt  made  in  our  day  to  generate  life 
independently  of  antecedent  life  has  utterly  broken 
down."  Or,  if  we  turn  to  a  teacher,  whose  dictum  will 
carry  still  greater  weight,  Lord  Kelvin  will  tell  us 
that  "inanimate  matter  cannot  become  living  except 
under  the  influence  of  matter  already  living.  This 
is  a  fact  in  science  which  seems  to  me,"  he  de- 
clares, "as  well  ascertained  as  the  law  of  gravitation." 

16 


How  Did  Life  Begin  f 


And  he  goes  on  to  say,  "I  am  ready  to  accept  as  an 
article  of  faith  in  science,  vaUd  for  all  time  and  in  all 
space,  that  life  is  produced  by  life,  and  only  by  life."^ 

Abiogenesis  is  merely  a  philosophic  theory, 
unsupported  by  even  the  faintest  shadow  of  evi- 
dence. But  more  than  this,  it  is  practically 
incapable  of  proof,  for  the  problem  implies  the 
proof  of  a  negative  in  circumstances  which  render 
the  difficulties  of  such  proof  overwhelming.  To 
establish  the  fact  of  spontaneous  generation  in  a 
world  teeming  with  life,  would  be  as  hopeless  as 
the  attempt  to  prove  that  the  displacement  of  a 
table  in  a  dark  room  crowded  with  people  was 
caused  without  interference  on  their  part.^ 

But,  we  are  told,  the  fact  that  we  know  absolutely 
nothing  of  the  origin  of  life,  and  that  there  is  not 
a  shadow  of  direct  evidence  that  abiogenesis  has 
ever  taken  place,  does  not  interfere  with  the  con- 
clusion *'  that  at  some  time  or  other  abiogenesis 
must  have  taken  place.  If  the  hypothesis  of 
evolution  be  true,  living  matter  must  have  arisen 
from  not-living  matter."^  Therefore  life  did  orig- 
inate thus,  and  the  truth  of  evolution  is  established. 
Thus  argue  the  professors  and  scientists.  But  the 
man  who  considers,  reflects,  hesitates,  doubts,  will 
call  for  the  evidence ;  and,  finding  there  is  none, 
he  will  reject  the  conclusion,  and  also,  if  necessary, 
the  dependent  hypothesis. 

1  Brit.   Assoc,    Edinburgh,    1871. 

2  And  if  the  proof  were  given,  it  would  be  more  reasonable,  more 
philosophical,  to  assume  the  presence  of  some  unseen  agency — i.e.,  to  fall 
back  upon  spiritualism — than  to  suppose  the  furniture  capable  of 
spontaneous    motion. 


'  Professor  Huxley,  Encyc.  Brit.,   "Biology. 

17 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

We  set  out  to  solve  the  mystery  of  life.  Science 
claimed  to  possess  the  clew,  and  offered  to  be  our 
guide.  And  now,  having  been  led  back  to  the 
identical  point  from  which  we  started,  we  are  told 
we  must  shut  our  eyes  and  take  a  leap  in  the  dark. 
It  is  a  bad  case  of  the  ''  confidence  trick." 

''  Besides  being  absolutely  without  evidence  to 
give  it  external  support,  this  hypothesis  cannot 
support  itself  internally — cannot  be  framed  into  a 
coherent  thought.  It  is  one  of  those  illegitimate 
symbolic  conceptions  so  continually  mistaken  for 
legitimate  symbolic  conceptions,  because  they 
remain  untested.  Immediately  an  attempt  is  made 
to  elaborate  the  idea  into  anything  like  a  definite 
shape,  it  proves  to  be  a  pseud-idea,  admitting  of 
no  definite  shape."  It  "  implies  the  establishment 
of  a  relation  in  thought  between  nothing  and  some- 
thing— a  relation  of  which  one  term  is  absent — 
an  impossible  relation."  ''  The  case  is  one  of  those 
where  men  do  not  really  believe,  but  rather  believe 
they  believe.  For  belief,  properly  so  called,  implies 
a  mental  representation  of  the  thing  believed ;  and 
no  such  mental  representation  Is  here  possible."  ^ 

Evolution  assumes  the  existence  of  life;  postu- 
lates it,  as  the  scientists  would  say.  No  more  is 
needed  than  one  solitary  germ  of  living  matter. 
Indeed,  to  seek  for  more  would  be  unphilosophical.^ 
But  this  primeval  germ  must  be  taken  for  granted. 

1  The   words   are   Herbert   Spencer's    (Principles  of  Biology,    §    112); 
tne    application    of   them    is   entirely    my    own. 


2  "1 


.r  .-^^.  ^"  living  beings  have  been  evolved  from  pre-existing  forms  of 
life,  it  is  enough  that  a  single  particle  of  living  protoplasm  should  have 
once  appeared  on  the  globe,  as  the  result  of  no  matter  what  agency.  In 
the  eyes  of  a  consistent  evolutionist  anv  further  independent  formation 
2LP''°*"r'^^-'^"^  would  be  sheer  waste." — Professor  Huxley,  Encxc.  Brit. 

Biology." 

18 


How  Did  Life  Begin  f 


The  sceptic  will  refuse  to  assign  to  it  an  origin 
which  contradicts  all  our  experience  and  surpasses 
our  knowledge.  The  only  hypothesis  he  can  accept 
is  that  life  has  existed  without  any  limitation  of 
time ;  that  the  original  life-germ  was  eternal  and 
practically  self-existent. 

And  of  course  nothing  could  be  evolved  from  it 
which  was  not  inherent.  It  must  have  been  preg- 
nant with  all  the  forms  and  developments  of  life 
with  which  the  world  is  full.  Moreover  it  is  only 
ignorant  conceit  to  maintain  that  evolution  has 
reached  its  limits.  If  man  has  sprung  from  such 
an  origin,  we  must  suppose  that,  in  the  far-distant 
future,  beings  will  be  developed  as  superior  to 
mankind  as  we  ourselves  are  superior  to  the  insects 
crawling  on  the  earth.  According  to  the  hypothesis 
the  latent  capacities  of  the  first  life-germ  were 
infinite.  "  Capabilities,"  remember,  not  tendencies. 
Unknowable  force  may  account  for  tendencies,  but 
it  cannot  create  capacities. 

Not  that  this  distinction  will  save  us  from  the 
pillory.  The  philosopher  will  condepm  the  statement 
as  unphilosophical — "a  shaping  of  ignorance  into 
the  semblance  of  knowledge"  and  I  know  not  what 
besides.^  But  these  brave  words  can  be  tested  at 
once   by   assuming   the    contrary   to   what   is   here 

"^Principles  of  Biology,  §  144.  I  have  no  wish  to  shelter  myself  be- 
hind Professor  Huxley,  hnt  I  c'aim  his  companionship  and  sympathy  in 
the  pijlory.  He  says,  "Of  the  causes  which  have  led  to  the  origination 
of  living  matter,  then,  it  may  be  said  that  we  know  absolutely  nothing. 
But  postulating  the  existence  of  living  matter  endowed  with  that 
power  of  hereditary  transmission  and  with  that  tendency  to  vary  which 
is  found  in  all  such  matter.  Mr.  Darwin  has  shown  good  reasons  for 
believing,"  etc.  (Encyc.  Brit..  "Biology").  The  primordial  germ, 
mark,  is  "endowed"  with  a  "power"  and  a  "tendency."  What  had  Mr. 
Spencer  to  say  to  this?  All  that  I  assert  here  is  the  "power";  to  predi- 
cate  the   "tendency"   is  unnecessary   and  therefore   unphilosophical. 

19 


A  Doubter' s Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

asserted.  Let  us  take  it,  then,  that  the  primordial 
germ  had  no  latent  capacities  whatever.  And  yet 
we  are  to  accept  it  as  the  origin  of  all  the  amazing 
forms  and  phenomena  of  life  in  the  world.  If  we 
may  not  suppose  such  an  aptitude  naturally  pos- 
sessed by  organisms,  we  must  assume  an  f/iaptitude ; 
and  the  question  is  no  longer  whether  the  cause 
be  adequate  to  the  effects,  but  whether  effects  are 
to  be  ascribed  to  what  is  no  cause  at  all.  May  we 
not  retort  that  this  is  indeed  ''a  cause  unpre- 
sentable in  thought " — one  of  those  illegitimate 
symbolic  conceptions  which  cannot  by  any  mental 
process  be  elaborated  into  a  real  conception?^  In 
the  spirit  of  a  true  philosopher,  Charles  Darwin 
declared  that  "  the  birth  both  of  the  species  and  of 
the  individual  are  equally  parts  of  that  grand 
sequence  of  events  which  our  minds  refuse  to  accept 
as  the  result  of  blind  chance."  - 

By  what  word,  then,  shall  this  "  particle  of 
living  protoplasm "  be  called ;  this  great  First 
Cause ;  this  Life-germ,  eternal,  self-existent,  infinite 
in  essential  capacities?  There  is  but  one  word 
known  to  human  language  adequate  to  designate 
it,  and  that  word  is  GOD. 

Evolution — that  is,  Science — thus  leads  us  to  a 
point  at  which  either  we  must  blindly  and  with 
boundless  credulity  accept  as  fact  something  which 
is  not  only  destitute  of  proof,  but  which  is  positively 
disproved  by  every  test  we  are  at  present  able  to 
apply  to  it ;  or  else  we  must  recognise  an  existence 

^Descent  of  Man.  pt.   ii.   chap.  xxi. 
"^Principles  of  Biology,   §    144. 

20 


How  Did  Life  Begin  .^ 


which,  disguise  it  as  we  may,  means  nothing  less 
than  God. 

There  is  no  escape  from  this  dilemma.  Our 
choice  lies  between  these  alternatives.  The  sceptic 
will  at  once  reject  the  first;  his  acceptance  of  the 
second  is,  therefore,  a  necessity.  Men  whose  minds 
are  enslaved  by  a  preconceived  determination  to 
refuse  belief  in  God  must  be  content  here  to  stand 
like  fools,  owning  their  impotency  to  solve  the 
elementary  problem  of  existence,  and,  as  humble 
disciples  in  the  school  of  one  Topsy,  a  negro  slave- 
girl,  dismissing  the  matter  by  the  profound  and 
sapient  formula,  *'  I  'spect  I  grow'd  " !  But  tlie  free 
thinker,  unblinded  by  prejudice,  will  reject  an 
alternative  belief  which  is  sheer  credulity,  and, 
unmoved  by  the  sneers  of  pseudo-scientists  and 
sham-philosophers,  will  honestly  and  fearlessly 
accept  the  goal  to  which  his  reason  points,  and 
there  set  up  an  altar  to  an  unknown  God. 


21 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Sciejice  and  Religion 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  DARWINIAN    THEORY 

4;^  T  T'S  lovely  to  live  on  a  raft.     We  had  the  sky 

*  up  there  all  speckled  with  stars,  and  v^e 
used  to  lay  on  our  backs  and  look  up  at  them  and 
discuss  about  whether  they  were  made,  or  only 
just  happened.  Jim  he  allowed  they  was  made,  but 
I  allowed  they  happened;  I  judged  it  would  have 
took  too  long  to  make  so  many.  Jim  said  the 
moon  could  'a  laid  them ;  well,  that  looked  kind 
of  reasonable,  so  I  didn't  say  nothing  against  it, 
because  I've  seen  a  frog  lay  most  as  many,  so  of 
course  it  could  be  done.  We  used  to  watch  the 
stars  that  fell,  too,  and  see  them  struck  down.  Jim 
allowed  they'd  got  spoiled  and  was  hove  out  of 
the  nest." 

In  this  charming  piece  of  fooling,  Mark  Twain 
states  the  problem  admirably.  The  question  is 
whether  things  were  made,  or  ''only  just  happened." 
But  Jim,  being  a  philosopher,  suggested  evolution 
as  a  compromise,  and  Huck  Finn's  deism  was  not 
intelligent  enough  or  vigorous  enough  to  resist  it. 

''  Only  just  happened  " — that  supreme  folly  of 
nineteenth-century  philosophy,  is  as  really  a  posi- 
tive creed  as  the  Mosaic  cosmogony.  And  surely 
a  venerable  faith  of  any  sort  is  preferable  to  a 
new-fangled    superstition    which    has    no    rational 

22 


The  Darwinian  Theory 


sanction  and  is  devoid  even  of  that  kind  of  respect- 
ability which  antiquity  can  sometimes  impart. 

In  our  search  after  the  origin  of  life  reason  guides 
us  in  a  path  which  leads  direct  to  God.  Nor  let 
any  one  here  object  that  this  is  but  a  veiled  appeal 
to  revelation.  Unless  reason  points  to  the  existence 
of  a  God,  the  question  of  a  revelation  cannot  even 
arise.  And  if  any  one  should  raise  the  difficulty 
which  robbed  Professor  Tyndall  of  his  sleep  in 
childhood,  ''Who  made.  God  ?"^  the  solution  is  to 
be  found,  not  in  attempting  to  answer  the  question, 
but  in  exposing  its  absurdity.  "  Science,"  Lord 
Kelvin  declares,  ''  positively  affirms  creative 
power. "2  And  it  is  because  science  leads  us  back 
to  an  existence  which  never  had  a  beginning  that, 
for  want  of  any  other  term  by  which  to  designate 
it,  we  call  it  God. 

But  here  we  must  turn  back  upon  the  ground 
already  traversed.  We  have  been  dealing  hitherto 
with  evolution,  not  as  an  hypothesis  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  species,  but  merely  as  a  pretended 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  life ;  and  we  have 
found  that,  thus  regarded,  it  is  but  a  blind  lane 
which  leads  nowhere.  The  inquiry  suggests  itself, 
therefore,  whether  the  conception  of  God  be  a  true 
one  which  we  have  thus  reached  by  escape  from  a 
wrong  path.    The  question  whether  there  be  a  God 

^  "Athwart  all  play  and  amusement  a  thread  of  seriousness  ran 
through  my  character;  and  many  a  sleepless  night  of  my  childhood  has 
been  passed  fretted  by  the  question,  'Who  made  God?'" — Professor  FiV- 
chow  and  Evolution.  Was  the  elder  Mill  the  author  of  this  absurd 
problem?      See    J.    S.    Mill's    Autobiography,    p.    43. 

^Christian  Apologetics  (Murray),  p.  25.  The  book  is  a  republica- 
tion of  lectures  delivered  in  University  College  in  1903,  at  one  of  which 
Lord   Kelvin  was  present   and  spoke. 


23 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

is  no  longer  open.  \Miat  concerns  us  now  is  merely 
to  decide  what  kind  of  God  we  shall  acknowledge. 
Shall  we  be  content  with  the  mystic  Pantheism 
which  a  false  system  of  biology  would  offer  us,  or 
shall  we  adore  an  intelligent  ruler  of  the  universe? 

The  man  who  can  give  no  account  of  his  own 
existence  is  a  fool ;  and  he  who  denies  a  God  can 
give  no  account  of  his  existence.  In  the  old  time 
men  whispered  their  folly  within  their  own  hearts ; 
nowadays  they  proclaim  it  on  the  housetops,  or, 
to  translate  the  Oriental  figure  into  its  Western 
correlative,  they  publish  it  in  printed  books.  But 
philosophy  is  not  folly,  and  folly  has  no  right  to 
call  itself  wisdom.  There  is  a  God — that  is  certain ; 
what  then  can  reason  tell  us  of  Ilim? 

As  heathen  poets  wrote  two  thousand  years  ago, 
"We  are  also  His  offspring."^  It  behooves  us, 
therefore,  to  ascribe  to  Him  the  highest  qualities 
which  His  creatures  are  endowed  with.  To  admit, 
under  pressure  of  facts  which  we  can  neither  deny 
nor  ignore,  the  conception  of  a  God,  and  then  to 
minimise  that  conception  so  that  it  becomes  inade- 
quate to  account  for  the  facts —  this  is  neither 
reason  nor  philosophy,  but  crass  folly.  Since  reason 
shuts  us  up  to  belief  in  God,  let  us  have  the  courage 
of  free  thought,  and  instead  of  taking  refuge  in 
a  vague  theism,  let  us  acknowledge  a  real  God — 
not  the  great  "primordial  germ,"  but  the  Creator 
of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

Regarded  as  a  theory  to  account  for  life,  evolution 

^  rov  yap  nal  ytvo^  IdMer  (Aratus,  Phoen.);  and  Kleanthes 
writes,  ^fi  dov  ydip  yevo^   idjuav. 

24 


The  Darwinian  Theory 


is  the  wildest  folly ;  but  as  an  hypothesis  to  account 
for  the  varied  forms  of  life,  it  claims  a  hearing  on 
its  merits.  And  viewed  in  this  light,  no  one  need 
denounce  it  as  necessarily  irreligious.  As  the 
apostle  of  evolution  with  fairness  urges,  he  Avho 
thus  denounces  it  "  is  bound  to  show  why  it  is 
more  irreligious  to  explain  the  origin  of  man  as  a 
distinct  species  by  descent  from  some  lower  form, 
through  the  laws  of  variation  and  natural  selection, 
than  to  explain  the  birth  of  the  individual  through 
laws  of  ordinary  reproduction.  The  birth  both  of 
the  species  and  of  the  individual  are  equally  parts 
of  that  grand  sequence  of  events  which  our  minds 
refuse  to  accept  as  the  result  of  blind  chance.  The 
understanding  revolts  at  such  a  conclusion."  ^ 

Darwan  might,  indeed,  have  stated  the  matter 
much  more  strongly.  To  call  into  existence  a  lowly 
organised  form  of  life,  endowed  with  latent  capaci- 
ties so  wonderful,  and  so  exquisitely  adjusted  that 
only  when  a  certain  stage  of  development  is  reached, 
the  moral  qualities  spring  into  exercise,  immortality 
is  attained,  and  there  arises  in  the  mind  *'  the  idea 
of  a  universal  and  beneficent  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse"-— this  is  a  far  more  amazing  act  of  creative 
power  than  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  genesis  of 
man  supposes.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  very 
admission  suggests  a  question  the  importance  of 
which  none  but  the  superficial  and  the  ignorant 
will  doubt,  Is  not  the  Mosaic  account,  for  that 
very  reason,  the  more  philosophical  hypothesis? 


^  The  Descent  of  Man,  pt.    ii.   chap.   xxi. 
2  The  Descent  of  Man,  pt.   ii,   chap,  xxi, 

25 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

It  is  obvious  that  if  we  acknowledge  *'  a  benefi- 
cent Creator  of  the  universe,"  the  existence  of  man 
is  explained  by  the  necessary  admission  that  he  is 
a  creature;  and  no  theory  of  development  from  a 
lower  form  of  life  would  be  tenable  for  a  moment, 
were  it  not  for  reasons  which  lie  hidden,  and  do  not 
appear  upon  the  surface.  Of  that  very  character, 
however,  are  the  grounds  upon  which  the  hypoth- 
esis of  evolution  rests.  These  may  be  summarised 
in  a  single  sentence,  as  ''  the  close  similarity 
between  man  and  the  lower  animals  in  embryonic 
development,  as  well  as  in  innumerable  points  of 
structure  and  constitution,  both  of  high  and  of  the 
most  trifling  importance — the  rudiments  which  he 
retains,  and  the  abnormal  reversions  to  which  he 
is  occasionally  liable."  ^ 

But  these  facts,  indisputable  and  striking  though 
they  be,  may  one  and  all  be  accounted  for  by  an 
hypothesis  of  an  exactly  opposite  character.  Instead 
of  assuming  that  the  protoplastic  organism  was  of 
the  humblest  form,  but  endowed  with  capacities  of 
development,  why  should  we  not  suppose  that  man 
himself  was  the  primordial  creature,  and  that  he 
came  from  the  Creator's  hand  stamped  with  char- 
acteristics ''  in  innumerable  points  of  structure  and 
constitution,"  to  warn  him  that  he  was  made  liable 
to  a  law  of  degeneration  and  decay,  and  that  the 
neglect  or  perversion  of  his  noble  powers  would 
degrade  him  indefinitely  in  the  scale  of  life?  It  is 
certain  that  this  hypothesis  is  more  in  accordance 
with   the   traditional   beliefs  of   the   heathen   world 

^  The  Descent  of  Man. 

26 


The  Darwinian  Theory 


than  that  of  evolution,  and  it  would  be  easy  to 
maintain  that  it  is  more  philosophical/ 

We  shall  gain  nothing  by  misrepresenting  facts, 
and  no  fair  person  will  pretend  that  experience 
warrants  the  hypothesis  that  any  race  of  men,  that 
any  individual  even,  ever  advanced  in  the  scale 
of  life  save  under  the  constant  pressure  of  favouring 
circumstances.  But  while  culture  alone  will,  so 
far  as  our  experience  teaches  us,  account  for  an 
advance,  the  tendency  to  degenerate  seems  univer- 
sal. "In .  the  Australian  bush,"  for  example,  "and 
in  the  backwoods  of  America,  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race,  in  which  civilisation  has  developed  to  a  con- 
siderable degree,  rapidly  lapses  into  comparative 
barbarism,  adopting  the  moral  code,  and  sometimes 
the  habits,  of  savages. "- 

And  evolution,  while,  in  theory  at  least,  account- 
ing for  the  physical  fact  it  appeals  to,  makes  no 
reasonable  attempt  to  explain  the  moral  phenomena 
which  claim  our  attention,  though  these  are  far 
more  significant  and  important.  We  know  what  it 
is  to  meet  with  people  over  whose  origin  or  career 
some  mystery  evidently  hangs.  A  bar  sinister  has 
crossed  their  pedigree,  or  their  life  is  darkened  by 
some  strange  secret.  And  is  there  not  something 
akin  to  this  in  the  history  of  our  race?  Can  any 
intelligent  observer  look  back  upon  the  history  of 

^  Paleontology  will  here  be  appealed  to  in  opposition  to  my  sugp-'^?- 
tion,  but  the  answer  is  obvious.  From  an  age  when  the  earth  was 
thinly  populated,  and  extreme  respect  was  shown  to  the  dead,  we  could 
not  expect  to  find  fossil  human  remains  unless  we  suppose  that  the 
geological  strata  in  which  the  fossils  are  found  were  form.ed  in  sudden 
convulsions  of  nature,  and  this  supposition  would  put  Paleontology  out 
of   court    altogether. 


2  Principles  of  Biology,   §   67. 

27 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

the  world,  or  honestly  face  the  dismal  facts  of  life 
around  us — "  the  turbid  ebb  and  flow  of  human 
misery  " — and  fail  to  find  traces  of  some  mysterious 
disaster  in  primeval  times,  which  still  disturbs  the 
moral  sphere? 

According:  to  the  evolutionist,  man  is  but  an 
upstart,  a  biological  parvenu,  ever  in  danger  of 
betraying  his  humble  origin,  and  occasionally  show- 
ing a  tendency  to  revert  to  his  former  state.  But 
surely  it  is  only  a  base  materialism  which  would 
assign  to  the  phenomena  on  which  this  theory  rests 
the  same  importance  as  that  which  we  ascribe  to 
the  mysteries  of  man's  inner  being.  The  presence 
in  embryo  of  organs  properly  belonging  to  the 
brute,  or  such  "reversions"  as  *'the  occasional 
appearance  of  canine  teeth  " — what  are  these  in 
comparison  with  the  fact  that  life  from  the  cradle 
to  the  grave  is  marked  by  baffled  aspirations  after 
an  unattainable  ideal,  and  unsatisfied  cravings  for 
the  infinite?  Are  we  to  believe  that  these  cravings 
and  aspirations  are  derived  from  the  "  hairy  quad- 
ruped with  a  tail  and  pointed  ears  "  ? 

"  As  soon  as  man  grew  distinct  from  the  animal 
he  became  religious."  A  sense  of  humour  would 
have  saved  Renan  from  offering  a  suggestion  so 
grotesque  as  this.  We  might  admit  for  the  sake  of 
argument  that  the  descendant  of  an  ape  might  be- 
come philosophical  and  mathematical  and  musical ; 
but  how  and  why  should  he  become  religious?  "To 
call  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  a  '  by-product  '  is 
a  jest  too  big  for  this  little  world."  ^     "  Man,"  the 

1  These   words   are   attributed   to   Dr.    Alfred   Russell   Wallace. 

28 


The  Darzuinian  Theory 


evolutionist  declares,  ''  still  bears  in  his  bodily 
frame  the  indelible  stamp  of  his  lowly  origin."^ 
His  inner  being,  we  may  with  greater  truth  reply, 
gives  unmistakable  proof  that  his  origin  was  a  high 
and  noble  one.  Evolution,  remember,  is  not  fact, 
but  only  theory.  The  facts  are  the  pearls ;  evolution 
is  but  the  string  on  which  we  are  asked  to  hang 
them.  And  we  shall  seek  in  vain  for  a  single  shred 
of  direct  evidence  in  support  of  it.- 

It  is  significant  that  naturalists  who  suppose  new 
species  to  be  originated  by  evolution  "  habitually 
suppose  the  origination  to  occur  in  some  region 
remote  from  human  observation."^  These  results 
are  supposed  to  have  been  produced  during  "  those 
immeasurable  epochs,"  "  untold  millions  of  years  " 
before  "  beings  endowed  with  capacity  for  wide 
thought"  existed  on  the  earth."*  To  which  the 
sceptic  will  make  answer :  First,  that  there  is  no 
proof  that  this  earth  has  so  long  existed  in  a 
habitable  state ;  it  is  a  mere  inference  based  upon 
a  certain  geological  theory  which  is  wholly 
unproved  and  by  no  means  universally  accepted. 
And,  secondly,  that  as  neither  the  course  of  nature 
Vv'ithin  known  periods,  nor  the  skill  of  man,  has  ever 
produced  a  species,  we  may  be  merely  stultifying 
our  minds  b}^  dismissing  the  difficulty  to  a  m3^thical 

^  These  are  the  closing  words  of  The  Descent  of  Man. 

2  I  am  aware  that  Herbert  Spencer  asserts  that  the  hypothesis  "has 
the  support  of  direct  evidence"  {Principles  of  Biology.  %  121).  But 
this  extraordinary  statement  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  supposing  that 
he  uses  words  in  a  loose  and  popular  way  which  cannot  be  permitted 
here. 

*  The  lanpuaec,  but  not  the  application  of  it,  is  Herbert  Spencer's 
{Principles  of  Biology.  §  112). 

*  Principles  of  Biology,    §§    114,    120. 

29 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religioyi 

past  about  which  we  may  conjecture  and  romance, 
but  concerning  which  we  know  absolutely  nothing. 

But  let  us  for  the  moment  assume  these  ''  untold 
millions  of  years,"  these  "  immeasurable  epochs  "  of 
an  "abysmal  past,"  during  which  the  evolutionary 
process  has  been  developing.  Further,  let  us  con- 
cede that  the  supposed  process  is  so  slow  that  no 
appreciable  change  may  be  looked  for  within  the 
period  of  historic  time.  In  fact,  let  us,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  admit  everything  assumed  by  the 
evolutionist,  excepting  only  the  hypothesis  of  evolu- 
tion itself,  and  we  can  at  once  subject  that 
hypothesis  to  a  practical  test  of  the  simplest  kind, 
which  will  either  establish  its  truth  or  demonstrate 
its  falseness. 

Suppose  our  world  were  visited  by  a  being  of 
intelligence,  able  to  converse  with  men,  but  wholly 
ignorant  of  an  existence  like  ours,  marked  by  devel- 
opment and  decay.  Brought  face  to  face  with 
puling  infancy,  vigorous  manhood,  and  the  senile 
decrepitude  of  extreme  old  age,  such  a  being  might 
express  incredulous  wonder  on  hearing  that  these 
were  but  successive  stages  in  human  life.  And  he 
might  answer  fairly  and  with  shrewdness,  "  If  such 
a  statement  be  true,  then  there  must  l)e  individuals 
in  the  world  of  every  possible  age,  from  a  minute  to 
a  hundred  years,  and  manifesting  every  imaginnble 
degree  of  growth  and  decline."  To  which  the 
unequivocal  reply  we  should  of  course  be  able  to 
offer  would  put  an  end  to  his  scepticism. 

But  suppose  we  were  to  make  some  such  answer 
as  this :  "  True  it  is  that  never  a  moment  passes 

30 


The  Darwinian  Theory 


but  that  some  new  life  enters  the  world,  and  some 
blighted  or  withered  life  disappears  from  it ;  the 
processes  of  generation  and  growth  and  decay  are 
all  unceasing  and  constant;  but  yet  we  cannot  sat- 
isfy the  test  you  put  to  us.  We  can  show  you  large 
children  and  small  adults,  smooth-faced  boys  and 
full-bearded  men,  types  of  failing  manhood  and  of 
hale  old  age,  but  there  are  '  missing  links  '  which 
we  cannot  supply.  Of  some  of  these  we  have 
'  archeological  evidence,'  there  are  fossil  specimens 
in  our  museums ;  and  the  learned  tell  us  that  others 
no  doubt  exist  and  will  yet  be  found ;  but  of  living 
specimens  there  are  none,  though  all  the  resources 
of  nature  and  of  science  have  been  appealed  to  in 
the  effort  to  produce  them."  With  such  an  answer 
our  ephemeral  visitor  might  well  return  to  his 
celestial  home  perplexed  with  grave  misgivings 
respecting  our  honesty  or  our  intelligence. 

And  so  here.  The  cases  are  entirely  parallel.  If 
the  processes  of  evolution  have  been  in  operation 
during  infinite  aeons  of  time,  and  be  still  at  work, 
"  missing  links  "  are  out  of  the  question.  The  nat- 
uralist will,  of  course,  be  able  to  point  to  types  of 
every  imaginable  stage  of  development,  from  the 
simplest  and  humblest  to  the  most  exquisitely 
complex  and  perfect.  But  the  naturalist  can  do 
no  such  thing.  There  are  almost  innumerable  gaps 
in  the  chain,  which  could  only  be  accounted  for  by 
the  supposition  that  evolution  has  again  and  again 
been  interrupted  during  intervals  so  prolonged, 
that  in  comparison  with  them  the  entire  period  of 
historic  time  is  but  as  a  tick  of  the  clock.     There- 

•31 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  S device  and  Religion 

fore  it  is  that  at  every  step  the  naturalist  has  to 
appeal  to  the  Paleontologist.  As  Huxley  will  tell 
us,  ''  The  only  perfectly  safe  foundation  for  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  lies  in  the  historical,  or  rather 
archeological  evidence,  that  particular  organisms 
have  arisen  by  the  gradual  modification  of  their 
predecessors,  which  is  furnished  by  fossil  remains." 

The  evolutionist  professes  to  account  for  the 
oiigin  of  species,  but,  finding  as  he  proceeds  that, 
under  his  hypothesis,  the  problem  remains  inexpli- 
cable, he  strives  to  conceal  its  real  character. 
Whence  the  distinctions  which  he  thus  classifies? 
How  can  he  account  for  species  itself?  He  strug- 
gles to  escape  from  the  difficulty  by  representing 
all  such  distinctions  as  being  purely  arbitrary.  But 
such  a  piece  of  "  special  pleading  "  only  betrays  the 
weakness  of  his  position.  The  lines  which  separate 
one  species  from  another  are  clearly  marked,  as  is 
evidenced  by  the  undoubted  fact  that  the  effects 
of  both  culture  and  neglect  are  strictly  limited  by 
them.  The  reality  of  the  difficulty,  moreover,  the 
evolutionist  himself  acknowledges  by  the  recog- 
nition of  missing  links,  and  by  his  appeal  to  the 
fossils  to  supply  them.  The  necessity  for  the 
admission  and  the  appeal  are  a  conclusive  proof 
that  his  hypotliiesis  is  untenable. 

Let  us  then  keep  clearly  in  view,  first,  that 
evolution  is  merely  a  philosophic  theory;  second, 
that  it  is  unproA^ed ;  third,  that  it  is  inadequate ; 
and  fourth,  that  (as  will  appear  more  plainly  in 
the  sequel)  it  is  unnecessary,  except  of  course  with 
those  scientists  who  cling  to  any  plank  that  will 

32 


The  Darwinian  Theory 


save  them  from  having  to  acknowledge  God.  And, 
it  may  be  added,  there  is  a  fashion  in  science  as 
well  as  in  dress,  and  the  fashion  changes  almost 
as  rapidly  in  the  one  sphere  as  in  the  other.  And 
so,  as  Karl  von  Hartmann  wrote : 

''  In  the  sixties  of  the  past  century  the  opposition 
of  the  older  group  of  savants  to  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis  was  still  supreme.  In  the  seventies  the 
new  idea  began  to  gain  ground  rapidly  in  all  cul- 
tured countries.  In  the  eighties  Darwin's  influence 
was  at  its  height,  and  exercised  an  almost  absolute 
control  over  technical  research.  In  the  nineties,  for 
the  first  time,  a  few  timid  expressions  of  doubt  and 
opposition  were  heard ;  and  these  gradually  swelled 
into  a  great  chorus  of  voices,  aiming  at  the  over- 
throw of  the  Darwinian  theory.  In  the  first  decade 
of  the  twentieth  century  it  has  become  apparent 
that  the  days  of  Darwinism  are  numbered."  ^ 

^  Taken  from  a  translation  given  in  The  Pall  Mall  Magazine  for 
September,  1904.  As  a  commentary  upon  it  I  may  add  the  following 
extract  from  an  article  entitled  "The  Riddle  of  Evolution,"  which  ap- 
peared  in    The    Times  Literary  Supplement  of   June   9,    1905: 

"No  one  possessed  of  a  sense  of  humour  can  contemplate  without 
amusement  the  battle  of  evolution,  encrimsoned  (dialecticaliy  speaking) 
with  the  gore  of  innumerable  combatants,  encumbered  with  the  corpses 
of  the  (dialecticaliy)  slain,  and  resounding  with  the  cries  of  the  living, 
as  they  hustle  together  in  the  fray.  [Here  follows  a  lengthy  list  of  the 
various  schools  and  sects  of  Evolutionists.]  Never  was  seen  such  a 
melee.  The  humour  of  it  is  that  they  all  claim  to  represent  'Science,' 
the  serene,  the  majestic,  the  absolutely  sure,  the  undivided  and  im- 
mutable, the  one  and  only  vicegerent  of  Truth,  her  other  self.  Not 
theirs  the  weakness  of  the  theologians  or  the  metaphysicians,  who  stum- 
ble about  in  uncertainty,  obscurity,  and  ignorance  with  their  baseless 
assumptions,  flimsy  hypotheses,  logical  fallacies,  interminable  dissen- 
sions, and  all  the  other  marks  of  inferiority  on  which  the  votaries  of 
Science  pour  ceaseless  scorn.  Yet  it  would  puzzle  them  to  point  to  a 
theological  battlefield  exhibiting  more  uncertainty,  obscurity,  dissension, 
assumption,  and  fallacy  than  their  own.  _  For  the  plain  truth  is  that, 
though  some  agree  in  'this  or  that,  there  is  not  a  single  point  in  which 
all  agree;  battling  for  evolution  they  have  torn  it  to  pieces;  nothing  is 
left,  nothing  at  all  on  their  own  showing,  save  a  few  fragments  strewn 
about  the  arena.     ..." 


33 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 
CHAPTER  III 

HERBERT  SPENCER's  SCHEME 

THE  hypothesis  of  degeneration  has  been  here 
suggested  as  a  rival  to  that  of  evolution.  It 
equally  accounts  for  the  facts,  and  is  less  beset 
with  difficulties.  Are  we  then  to  accept  it?  By 
no  means.  Both  alike  are  mere  theories,  wholly 
unsupported  by  direct  evidence;  and  therefore  the 
sceptic  will  reject  both,  unless  they  be  alternatives, 
and  he  is  thus  compelled  to  make  choice  between 
them.  But  they  are  not  alternatives.  The  facts 
submitted  to  our  notice  by  the  naturalist  would 
be  still  more  fully  accounted  for  by  the  assumption 
that  every  kind  of  creature  sprang  from  the  same 
Creator's  hand. 

And  this  is,  in  fact,  the  only  alternative  which 
the  evolutionist  admits.  "  We  have  to  choose 
between  two  hypotheses,"  he  tells  us — "the  hypoth- 
esis of  special  creations,  and  the  hypothesis  of 
evolution."  The  necessity  for  this  admission,  be 
it  observed,  is  by  implication  a  conclusive  proof 
that  evolution  is  unproved.^ 

Let  us,  then,  consider  the  suggested  alternative. 
Herbert  Spencer  will  tell  us  that,  ''  however 
regarded,  the  hypothesis  of  special  creations  turns 
out  to  be  worthless — worthless  by  its  derivation ; 
worthless  in  its  intrinsic  incoherence ;  worthless  as 

*  It  is  only  where  there  is  no  direct  proof  that  a  result  has  been 
caused  in  one  way  that  we  need  to  show  it  could  not  have  occurred  in 
any  other  way   (see  p.   15  ante). 

34 


Herbert  Spencer'' s  Scheme 


absolutely  without  evidence ;  worthless  as  not  sup- 
plying an  intellectual  need;  worthless  as  not  satis- 
fying a  moral  want.  We  must,  therefore,'  he  con- 
cludes, ''consider  it  as  counting  for  nothing  in 
opposition  to  any  other  hypothesis  respecting  the 
origin  of  organic  being."^ 

Upon  the  legal  mind  the  efifect  of  this  sort  of 
onslaught  is  merely  to  excite  suspicion  that  some 
weak  point  in  the  case  requires  to  be  concealed. 
Such  dogmatism  of  assertion  must  only  serve  to 
encourage  us  in  our  investigation  of  the  argument. 

First,  then,  we  are  told  that  the  notion  of  a 
creation  is  a  primitive  one,  and  "early  ideas  are 
not  usually  true  ideas."  ^  But  this  is  a  very  trans- 
parent petitio  principii;  for  unless  we  assume  that 
evolution  is  true,  which  is  precisely  what  has  to 
be  proved,  the  statement  is  of  no  force  whatever. 

Herbert  Spencer  proceeds  to  urge  that  a  belief 
in  creation  is  discredited  by  ''association  with  a 
special  class  of  mistaken  beliefs."  ^  Now  this,  of 
course,  is  a  reference  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
creation,^  and  it  is  sufficiently  answered  by  the  fact 
that  that  account  is  accepted  by  many  men  of  com- 
petent attainments  and  of  the  highest  intellectual 
capacity.* 

Again,  we  are  told  that  not  only  is  this  hypo- 

*  Principles  of  Biology,  %  115. 

^Principles  of  Biology,   §    110.  2  Ibid..    §    111. 

'  For  there  is  no  other  record  of  primitive  beliefs  in  question  here. 
Spencer,  it  is  true,  seeks  to  create  a  prejudice  by  bracketing  it  with 
"the  cosmogony  of  the  Indians  or  the  Greeks."  At  the  Bar  this  would 
be   characterized  as   a   nisi  prius  trick. 

*  They  are  careful,  no  doubt,  to  distinguish  between  what  the  Patri- 
arch actually  taught,  and  what,  as  they  maintain,  a  crude  misapprehen- 
sion of  his  teaching  attributes  to  him.  But  this  does  not  affect  my 
argument. 

35 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

thesis  "  not  countenanced  by  a  single  fact,"  but 
further,  that  it  "  cannot  be  framed  into  a  coherent 
thought,"  ^  and  is  merely  a  formula  for  our  igno- 
rance." ^  "  No  one  ever  saw  a  special  creation."  ^ 
True:  but  a  similar  objection  may  be  made  to  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution;  and  it  has,  in  fact,  been 
urged  in  these  pages  in  the  very  words  here  used 
by  Herbert  Spencer.  ^  It  is  admitted  that  no  new 
species  has  ever  been  evolved  within  human 
experience,  and  the  supposed  origination  is  referred 
to  "  an  abysmal  past,"  which  may,  for  aught  we 
know,  be  purely  fabulous.  The  objection,  if  of 
force  at  all,  is  equally  valid  against  both  hypotheses. 

For  let  us  keep  clearly  in  view  what  our  author 
studiously  conceals,  that  at  this  point  the  real 
question  is  not  the  origin  of  species,  but  the  origin 
of  life.  Until  he  can  give  us  some  reasonable 
account  of  the  existence  of  life,  we  shall  continue  to 
believe  in  ''a  beneficent  Creator  of  the  universe" ; 
and  though  Herbert  Spencer  will  deplore  our 
"  ignorance "  and  despise  our  ''  pseud-ideas,"  we 
shall  console  ourselves  by  the  companionship  of  a 
long  line  of  illustrious  men,  whose  names  per- 
chance will  be  increasingly  venerated  in  the  world 
of  philosophy  and  letters  when  some  new  generation 
of  scientists  shall  have  arisen  to  regard  with  patron- 
ising pity  the  popular  theories  of  to-day. 

*'No  one  ever  saw  a  special  creation,"  and  the 
hypothesis  "  cannot  be  framed  into  a  coherent 
thought."     This  implies,  first,  an  admission  that  if 

^Principles   of  Biology,   §    112. 

"Thid.,   §   113.  '  Ibid.,    §    112. 

^  See    p.    29   ante. 

36 


Herbert  Spencerh  Scheme 


we  were  permitted  to  see  a  special  creation  we 
could  frame  the  coherent  thought;  and,  secondly, 
an  assertion  that  our  ability  to  frame  ideas  is  limited 
by  our  experience.  The  admission  is  fatal,  and  the 
assertion  is  obviously  false. 

Herbert  Spencer's  remaining  objections  to  special 
creations  are  an  enumeration  of  certain  theological 
difficulties,  in  which  those  who  espouse  the  hypo- 
thesis are  supposed  to  entangle  themselves.  ^  These 
might  be  dismissed  with  the  remark  that  a  mere 
ad  homhiem  argument  is  of  no  importance  here. 
If  valid,  it  could  only  serve  to  discredit  theology, 
without  strengthening  the  author's  position.  But 
let  us  examine  it. 

The  objections  are  briefly  these.  Theology  is 
supposed  to  teach  that  special  creations  were 
designed  to  demonstrate  to  mankind  the  power  of 
the  Creator :  "  would  it  not  have  been  still  better 
demonstrated  by  the  separate  creation  of  each  indi- 
vidual?" It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  discuss  this, 
for  there  is  not  a  suggestion  in  the  Bible  from 
cover  to  cover  that  creation  had  any  such  purpose.^ 
AVhat  evolution  assumes,^  the  Bible  asserts,  namely, 
that  man  did  not  appear  in  the  world  until  after 
every  other  organised  form  was  already  in 
existence. 

But  the  next  and  final  difficulty  appears  at  first 

"^Principles  of  Biology,   §   114. 

*  When  a  writer  speaks  of  tiieology  in  general  terms,  without  indi- 
cating any  particular  author  or  school,  it  must  be  assumed  that  he  refers 
to  the  Bible,  which  is,  of  course,  the  only  religious  book  that  all  edu- 
cated readers  are  supposed  to  be  familiar  with. 

«  I  do  not  assert  that  all  evolutionists  admit  this,  but  I  maintain  that 
it  is  implied  in  the  hypothesis  of   evolution. 

37 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

sight  to  be  more  serious.  "  Omitting  the  human 
race,  for  whose  defects  and  miseries  the  current 
theology  professes  to  account,  and  limiting  our- 
selves to  the  lower  creation,  what  must  we  think  of 
the  countless  different  pain-inflicting  appliances  and 
instincts  with  which  animals  are  endowed, "  ^ 
"  Whoever  contends  that  each  kind  of  animal  was 
specially  designed,  must  assert  either  that  there 
was  a  deliberate  intention  on  the  part  of  the  Crea- 
tor to  produce  these  results,  or  that  there  was  an 
inability  to  prevent  them."  This  difficulty,  more- 
over, is  greatly  intensified  by  the  fact  that  "  of  the 
animal  kingdom  as  a  whole,  more  than  half  the 
species  are  parasites,  and  thus  we  are  brought  to 
the  contemplation  of  innumerable  cases  in  which 
the  suffering  inflicted  brings  no  compensating 
benefit." 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  these  objections  are 
applicable  as  really,  though,  possibly,  not  to  the 
same  extent,  to  the  hypothesis  of  creation  in  gen- 
eral. And  that  hypothesis  is  no  longer  in  question  ; 
for,  as  we  have  seen,  "  scientific  thought  is  com- 
pelled to  accept  the  idea  of  creative  power."^  And, 
in  the  second  place,  we  must  remember  that  these 
difficulties  are  purely  theological.  They  have  no 
force  save  against  those  of  us  who  believe  the 
Bible.  Such  people,  according  to  the  argument, 
must  abandon  either  the  Biblical  account  of  crea- 
tion or  the  Biblical  representation  of  God.  They 
must   assert   either  that   the   Creator   intended   to 

^  Principles  of  Biology,  §  1 14. 

2  See  p.   23   ante. 

38 


Herbert  Spencer'' s  Scheme 


produce  the  results  here  under  observation,  or  that 
there  was  an  inability  to  prevent  them.  In  other 
words,  God  is  deficient  either  in  goodness  or  in 
power. 

This  introduces  a  question  which  hitherto  has 
been  avoided  in  these  pages.  Nor  shall  it  here 
receive  more  than  the  briefest  notice ;  for  even  a 
conventional  acquaintance  with  the  Biblical  scheme 
will  enable  us  to  find  the  solution  of  Herbert  Spen- 
cer's difficulties.  The  validity  of  his  dilemma 
depends  upon  ignoring  one  of  the  fundamental 
dogmas  of  theology.  The  teaching  of  the  Bible  is 
unmistakable,  that  Adam  in  his  fall  dragged  down 
with  him  the  entire  creation  of  which  he  was  the 
federal  head;  that  the  suffering  under  which  the 
creature  groans  is  not  the  result  of  design,  but  of  a 
tremendous  catastrophe  which  has  brought  ruin  and 
misery  in  its  train ;  that  not  only  is  the  Creator  not 
wanting  in  power  to  restore  creation  to  its  pristine 
perfectness,  but  that  He  has  pledged  Himself  to 
accomplish  this  very  result,  and  that  the  restora- 
tion will  be  so  complete  that  even  the  destructive 
propensities  of  the  brute  will  cease. 

Such  is  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  unfolded  not 
merely  in  the  poetry  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  but 
in  the  dogmatic  prose  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. The  question  here  is  not  whether  it  be 
reasonable,  whether  it  be  true.  All  that  concerns 
us  is  the  fact  that  it  forms  an  essential  part  of  the 
Biblical  scheme,  and  thus  affords  a  complete  refu- 
tation of  an  ad  hominem  argument  which  depends 
for  its  validity  upon  misrepresenting  or  ignoring  it. 

39 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

Herbert  Spencer's  indictment  against  belief  in 
special  creations  thus  begins  and  ends  by  disin- 
genuous attempts  to  prejudice  the  issue.  And  in 
asserting  that  the  hypothesis  is  incapable  of  being 
"  framed  into  a  coherent  thought,"  he  urges  an 
objection  which  from  its  very  nature  admits  of 
no  other  answer  than  that  which  has  been  already 
given  to  it.  If  we  call  for  a  poll  upon  the  question, 
we  shall  find  on  one  side  a  crowd  of  illustrious  men 
of  unquestionable  fame,  and  of  the  very  highest 
rank  as  philosophers  and  thinkers ;  and  on  the  other, 
Herbert  Spencer  and  a  few  more  besides,  all  of  whom 
must  await  the  verdict  of  posterity  before  they  can 
be  permanently  assigned  the  place  which  some  of 
their  contemporaries  claim  for  them.  An  assertion 
which  thus  brands  the  entire  bead-roll  of  philoso- 
phers, from  Bacon  to  Charles  Darwin,  as  the  dupes 
of  a  "  pseud-idea,"  a  *'  formula  for  ignorance,"  is 
worthless  save  as  affording  matter  for  a  psycho- 
logical study  of  a  most  interesting  kind. 

The  alleged  absence  of  evidence  of  a  special  crea- 
tion has  been  already  met  by  pointing  out  that  the 
objection  equally  applies  to  the  hypothesis  of 
evolution.  But  perhaps  it  deserves  a  fuller  notice. 
''  No  one  ever  saw  a  special  creation,"  we  are  told. 
The  author  might  have  added  that  if  the  entire 
Royal  Society  in  council  were  permitted  to  ''  see  a 
special  creation,"  the  sceptic  would  reject  their 
testimony  unless  there  were  indirect  evidence  to 
confirm  it.  He  would  maintain  that  in  the  sphere 
of  the  miraculous,  direct  evidence,  unless  thus 
confirmed,   is   of   no   value   at    second   hand.      His 

40 


Herbert  Spencer'' s  Scheme 


language  would  be,  "  Produce  for  our  inspection 
the  organism  alleged  to  have  been  created,  and 
satisfy  us,  first,  that  it  had  no  existence  prior  to 
the  moment  assigned  for  its  creation,  and,  secondly, 
that  it  could  not  have  originated  in  some  way 
known  to  our  experience,  and  then,  indeed,  we 
shall  give  up  our  scepticism  and  accept  the  testi- 
mony offered  us." 

But  Herbert  Spencer  goes  on  to  aver  that  "  no 
one  ever  found  proof  of  an  indirect  kind  that  a 
special  creation  had  taken  place."  This  is  a  choice 
example  of  the  nisi  priiis  artifice  at  which  our 
author  is  such  an  adept.  The  existence  of  a  world 
teeming  with  life  has  been  accepted  by  the  greatest 
and  wisest  men  of  every  age  as  a  conclusive  proof 
that  a  special  creation  has  taken  place.  But  this  is 
boldly  met  by  sheer  weight  of  unsupported  denial. 

If  we  approach  the  subject,  not  as  special  pleaders 
or  partisans,  but  in  a  philosophic  spirit,  we  shall 
state  the  argument  thus: — The  admitted  facts  give 
proof  that  species  originated  either  by  special  crea- 
tions or  by  evolution.  If  either  hypothesis  can  be 
established  by  independent  evidence,  the  other  is 
thereby  discredited.  But,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other,  positive  proof  is  wholly  wanting.  We  must, 
therefore,  rely  upon  general  considerations.  On 
the  evolution  theory,  proof  is  confessedly  wanting 
that  the  alleged  cause  is  adequate  to  account  for 
the  admitted  facts. ^    Not  so  on  the  creation  hypoth- 

^  I  do  not  say  there  is  no  ei'idence.  But  all  admit  that  that  evidence 
does  not  amount  to  proof,  unless,  indeed,  the  alternative  hypothesis 
can  be  disproved;  and  to  disprove  it  is  the  whole  point  and  purpose  of 
Herbert    Spencer's   chapter    on   the    subject. 


41 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

esis,  for  as  we  admit  that  life  originated  by 
creation/  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  assigning  a 
similar  origin  to  species.  In  a  word,  as  we  side 
with  Darwin  in  believing  in  ''a  beneficent  Creator 
of  the  universe,"-  the  evolution  hypothesis  is 
unnecessary  and  therefore  unphilosophical. 

But,  further,  the  concealed  consequences  of  the 
argument  under  review  must  not  be  overlooked. 
If  it  be  valid  for  any  purpose  at  all,  it  disproves  not 
only  the  fact  of  a  creation,  but  the  existence  of  a 
Creator.  *'  No  one  ever  saw  a  special  creation  " ; 
neither  did  any  one  ever  see  the  Deity.  If,  as 
alleged,  we  have  no  evidence  of  His  handiwork, 
neither  have  w^e  proof  of  His  existence.  At  a  single 
plunge  we  have  thus  reached  the  level  of  blank 
atheism,  which  is  the  extreme  depth  of  moral  and 
intellectual  degradation.  "  The  birth  both  of  the 
species  and  the  individual "  must  equally  be 
ascribed  to  ''  blind  chance,"  ''  coercion "  being 
appealed  to,  I  suppose,  to  quell  the  inevitable 
"  revolt  of  the  understanding."^  And  the  strange 
religious  propensities  common  to  the  race,  whether 
civilised  or  savage,  must  also  be  suppressed;  or  at 
all  events,  our  Penates  must  be  strictly  limited  to 
an  effigy  of  our  hairy  quadrumanous  ancestor  with 
pointed  ears,  supplemented  possibly  by  some  *'  sym- 
bolic conception "  of  the  primordial  life-germ 
wrapped  in  a  cloud,  and  a  copy  of  Herbert  Spencer's 
System  of  Philosophy  to  guide  and  regulate  the  cult. 

1  See  pp.   23,   24  ante. 

2  But   see   p.   73  post    (footnote). 

3  See  p.   25   ante. 

42 


CHAPTER  IV 


HAVE  WE  A  REVELATION 


SCEPTICISM  is  ''not  a  permanent  resting-place 
for  human  reason."  The  knowledge  that 
there  is  bad  money  in  circulation  does  not  make 
us  fling  our  purse  into  the  gutter,  or  refuse  to 
replenish  it  when  empty.  The  sceptic  tries  a  coin 
before  accepting  it,  but  when  once  he  puts  it  in  his 
pocket,  his  appreciation  of  it  is,  for  that  very  rea- 
son, all  the  more  intelligent  and  full.  A  convinced 
doubter  makes  the  best  believer. 

As  Lord  Kelvin  declares,  ''  Scientific  thought  is 
compelled  to  accept  the  idea  of  creative  power." 
With  an  open  mind,  therefore,  and  unwavering  con- 
fidence the  true  sceptic  acknowledges  ''  the 
beneficent  Creator  of  the  universe."  And  in  no 
grudging  spirit,  but  honestly  and  fully,  he  will  own 
the  obligations  and  relationships  which  this 
involves.  Religion  is  implied  in  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  God.  And  further,  this  acknowledgment 
removes  every  a  priori  objection  to  the  idea  of  a 
revelation.  It  creates  indeed  a  positive  presumption 
in  its  favour.  For  if  we  are  the  offspring  of  a 
"beneficent  Creator,"  it  is  improbable  that,  in  a 
world  so  darkened  by  sorrow  and  doubt,  He  would 
leave  us  without  guidance,  and  without  light  as  to 
our  destiny. 

43 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

At  all  events,  our  belief  in  God  makes  it  incum- 
bent on  us  to  examine  any  alleged  revelation  which 
is  presented  to  us  with  reasonable  credentials.  If 
some  one  brings  me  what  purports  to  be  a  message 
or  letter  from  my  brother,  I  may  dispose  of  the 
matter  by  answering,  ''  I  have  no  brother  " ;  but  if 
I  possess  an  unknown  lost  brother,  I  cannot  refuse 
to  receive  the  communication  and  to  test  its  claims 
on  my  attention. 

But  here  we  must  keep  our  heads.  There  is  no 
sphere  in  which  the  functions  of  the  constable  are 
more  needed.  The  existence  of  a  lost  brother  is  no 
reason  for  sheltering  impostors.  Our  belief  in  God 
is  no  reason  for  abandoning  ourselves  to  supersti- 
tion, or  submitting  to  be  duped  by  foolish  or 
designing  men. 

Yet  another  caution  is  needed  here.  We  have 
now  reached  ground  where  the  judgment  of  men 
of  science  is  of  no  special  value  whatever.  So  long 
as  it  is  a  question  of  investigating  and  describing 
the  facts  and  phenomena  of  nature,  we  sit  at  their 
feet  with  unfeigned  admiration  of  their  genius  and 
industry;  but  when  it  becomes  a  question  of 
adjudicating  upon  the  evidence  with  which  they 
furnish  us,  they  must  give  way  to  those  whose 
training  and  habits  of  mind  make  them  better  fitted 
for  the  task.  We  place  the  very  highest  value  upon 
their  testimony  as  experts  in  all  matters  within 
their  own  province,  but  Ave  cannot  consent  to  their 
passing  from  the  witness-box  to  the  judicial  bench ; 
least  of  all  can  we  consent  to  their  occupying  such 
a  position  where  the  subject-matter  is  one  of  which 

44 


Have  We  a  Revelation  ? 


they  have  no  special  cognisance.^  In  such  a  case 
a  dozen  city  merchants,  with  a  trained  lawyer  to 
guide  their  deliberations,  would  make  a  better  trib- 
unal than  the  Royal  Society  could  supply. 

The  extreme  point  to  which  reason  leads  us  is 
the  recognition  of  an  unknown  God.  What  now 
concerns  us  is  the  inquiry  whether  He  has  revealed 
Himself  to  men.  Have  we  a  revelation?  A  dis- 
cussion of  this  question  on  a  priori  lines  would 
have  many  advantages.  But,  on  the  whole,  the 
practical  view  of  it  is  the  best.  And  it  would  be 
mere  pedantry  to  ignore  the  peculiar  claims  which 
Christianity  has  upon  our  notice.  In  fact,  the 
question  narrows  itself  at  once  to  this  plain  issue, 
Is  Christianity  a  Divine  revelation?  If  this  ques- 
tion be  answered  in  the  negative,  it  is  really  useless 
to  discuss  the  merits  of  Islam ;  and  as  for  Buddha, 
his  popularity  in  certain  quarters  in  England  as  a 
rival  to  Christ  is  proof  only  of  the  depth  of  Saxon 
silliness.  There  is  a  sense,  of  course,  in  which  all 
enthusiasm  is  inspiration,  but  for  our  present  pur- 
pose this  is  a  mere  fencing  with  words.  The 
question  is  perfectly  definite  and  clear  to  every  one 
who  wishes  to  understand  it.  Is  Christianity  a  reve- 
lation from  God?    Let  us  examine  the  witnesses. 

If  we  ask  in  what  form  this  alleged  revelation 
comes  to  us,  all  Christians  are  agreed  in  placing  in 
our  hands  a  Book ;  in  a  word,  they  point  us  to  the 
Bible.  But  here,  at  the  very  threshold,  their  unanim- 

1  The  childlike  faith  of  those  who  so  recently  bowed  before  that 
false  god  Bathybius  Haeckeli,  puts  to  blush  the  sweet  simplicity  of  the 
Sundav-school.  It  may  seem  ungenerous  to  remind  "philosophers  of 
their  folly,  but  we  cannot  ignore  it  when  considering  their  claims  to 
guide  our  judgment. 

45 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  a7id  Religwft 

ity  ceases.  While  some  would  insist  that  this  is 
the  only  revelation,  the  majority  of  Christendom 
would  point  us  also  to  a  certain  class  of  men  so 
supernaturally  gifted  and  accredited  that  they  are 
themselves  a  revelation.  This  system,  which  is 
popularly  associated  with  Rome,  deserves  priority 
of  consideration  because  of  the  prestige  it  enjoys 
by  reason  of  the  antiquity  of  its  origin,  and  the 
influence  and  number  of  its  disciples.  Moreover, 
if  its  claims  be  accepted,  the  truth  of  Christianity 
is  established ;  and  if  on  examination  they  be  re- 
jected, the  ground  is  cleared  for  the  consideration 
of  the  main  question  on  its  merits. 

The  founders  of  Christianity,  we  are  told,  in  ad- 
dition to  their  ability  to  work  miracles  such  as  the 
senses  could  take  notice  of,  possessed  also  super- 
natural powers  of  a  mystic  kind.  By  certain  mystic 
rites,  for  instance,  they  were  able  to  work  such  a 
transformation  in  common  bread  and  ordinary  wine, 
that,  although  no  available  test  could  detect  the 
change,  the  bread  really  became  flesh,  and  the  wine 
blood.  Further  still,  we  are  assured  that  these 
powers  have  been  transmitted  from  generation  to 
generation,  and  are  now  possessed  by  the  succes- 
sors .of  the  men  who  first  received  them  direct  from 
Heaven.  And  more  than  this,  we  are  asked  to  be- 
lieve that  these  miracles  are  actually  performed  in 
our  own  day,  not  in  isolated  and  remote  places  far 
removed  from  observation,  but  in  our  midst  and 
everywhere;  and  that,  too,  in  the  most  public  and 
open  manner. 

If  this  be  true,  it  is  obvious  that  not  only  the 
46 


Have  We  a  Revelation  f 


miracles  which  are  thus  wrought  in  our  presence, 
but  the  very  men  themselves  who  cause  them,  are 
a  Divine  revelation.  We  are  no  longer  left  to 
reach  out  toward  the  Supreme  Being  by  the  light 
of  reason;  we  are  thus  brought  face  to  face  with 
God. 

Indifiference  is  impossible  in  the  presence  of 
such  demands  on  our  faith.  If  these  men  in  fact 
possess  such  powers,  it  is  difficult  to  set  a  limit 
to  the  respect  and  veneration  due  to  them.  But 
if  their  pretensions  be  false,  it  is  monstrous  that 
they  should  be  permitted  to  trade  upon  the  credul- 
ity of  mankind.  Suppose  we  admit  for  the  sake  of 
argument  that  the  apostles  possessed  these  powers, 
the  question  remains,  Are  these  same  powers  in 
fact  possessed  by  the  men  who  now  claim  to  exer- 
cise them? 

It  is  not  easy  to  decide  what  amount  of  evidence 
ought  to  be  deemed  sufficient  in  such  a  case.  But 
is  there  any  evidence  at  all?  These  powers  are  not 
supposed  to  be  conferred  immediately  from  Heaven, 
but  immediately  through  other  men,  who  in  turn 
had  received  them  from  their  predecessors,  and  so  on 
in  an  unbroken  line  extending  back  to  the  days  of 
the  Apostles.  No  man  who  is  satisfied  with  the  evi- 
dence upon  which  evolution  rests  can  fairly  dispute 
the  proofs  of  an  apostolic  succession.  Let  us, 
therefore,  go  so  far  in  our  admissions  as  even  to 
accept  this  also;  and  that,  too,  without  stopping 
to  investigate  the  lives  of  those  through  whom  the 
''succession"  flowed.  Some  of  them  were  famous 
for    their    piety,    others    were    infamous    for    their 

47 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religio7t 

crimes.  But  passing  all  this  by,  let  us  get  face  to 
face  with  the  living  men  who  make  these  amazing 
demands  upon  our  faith. 

Some  of  these  men  were  our  playmates  in  child- 
hood, and  our  class-fellows  and  companions  in 
school  and  college  days.  We  recall  their  friendly 
rivalry  in  our  studies  and  our  sports,  and  their 
share  in  many  a  debauch  that  now  we  no  longer 
speak  of  when  we  meet.  Some  of  them  are  the 
firm  and  valued  friends  of  our  manhood.  We  re- 
spect them  for  their  learning,  and  still  more  for 
their  piet}^  and  their  self-denying  efforts  for  the 
good  of  their  fellow-men.  Others,  again,  have  fallen 
from  our  acquaintance.  Although,  ex  hypothesi, 
equally  endowed  with  supernatural  gifts  which 
should  make  us  value  their  presence  at  our  death- 
bed, they  are  exceptionally  addicted  to  natural  vices 
which  lead  us  to  shun  them  in  our  lifetime. 

And  this  disposes  of  one  ground  on  which  pos- 
sibly a  prima  facie  case  might  be  set  up.  If  all 
those  who  are  supposed  to  possess  these  extraordi- 
nary powers  were  distinguished  from  their  fellow- 
men  by  high  and  noble  qualities,  their  pretensions 
would  at  least  deserve  our  respect.  But  we  fail  to 
find  any  special  marks  of  character  or  conduct, 
which  even  the  most  partial  judge  could  point  to  for 
such  a  purpose. 

On  what  other  ground  then  can  these  claims  be 
maintained?  It  is  idle  to  beat  about  the  bush. 
The  fact  is  clear  as  light  that  there  is  not  a  shadow 
of  evidence  of  any  description  whatsoever  to  sup- 
port them.     This  being  so,  we  must  at  once  recall 

48 


Have  We  a  Revelation  ? 


one  of  the  admissions  already  made,  lest  these  men 
should  take  refuge  in  an  appeal  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  establishing  their  position.  The  enlight- 
ened Christianity  of  the  Reformation  emphatically 
denies  that  even  the  Apostles  themselves  possessed 
such  powers,  or  that  the  Bible  gives  any  counten- 
ance wdiatever  to  the  assumption  of  them.  In  a 
word,  Christians  who  are  the  very  elite  of  Christen- 
dom maintain  that  such  pretensions  have  no  Scrip- 
tural foundation  Avhatever, 

If  Christianity  be  true,  we  need  not  hesitate  to 
believe  that  certain  men  are  divinely  called  and 
qualified  as  religious  teachers.  But  this  position  is 
separated  by  an  impassable  gulf  from  the  mystic 
pretensions  of  priestcraft.  In  truth,  sacerdotalism 
presents  extraordinary  problems  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  thoughtful.  If  it  prevailed  only  among 
the  ignorant  and  degraded,  it  would  deserve  no  at- 
tention. But  the  fact  is  beyond  question  that  its 
champions  and  votaries  include  men  of  the  highest 
intellectual  eminence  and  moral  worth.  The  integ- 
rity of  such  men  is  irreproachable.  They  are  not 
accomplices  in  a  wilful  fraud  upon  their  fellows; 
they  are  true  and  honest  in  their  convictions.  How, 
then,  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that  many  who 
hold  such  high  rank  as  scholars  and  thinkers  are  thus 
the  dupes  of  such  a  delusion?  How  is  it  to  be 
explained  that  here  in  England,  while  w^e  boast  of 
increasing  enlightenment,  this  delusion  is  regaining 
its  hold  upon  the  religious  life  of  the  nation?  The 
national  Church,  Avhich  half  a  century  ago  was  com- 
paratively  free   from    the    evil,   is   now   hopelessly 

49 


A  Doubter'^s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

leavened  with  it.  The  more  this  matter  is  studied 
the  more  inexplicable  it  seems,  unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  believe  in  the  existence  of  spiritual  influ- 
ences of  a  sinister  kind,  by  which  in  the  religious 
sphere  the  minds  even  of  men  of  intellect  and  cul- 
ture are  liable  to  be  warped  and  blinded/ 

1  To  discuss  the  legality  of  such  views  and  practices  in  the  Church 
of  England  would  be  foreign  to  my  argument,  and  outside  the  scope  of 
my  book;  and  moreover,  having  regard  to  Articles  XXVIII.  and  XXXI., 
I  cannot  see  that  the  question  is  open.  Here  is  one  clause  of  Article 
XXVIII.:— 

"Transsubstantiation  (or  the  change  of  the  substance  of  Bread  and 
Wine)  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by  holy  Writ;  but 
is  repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  overthroweth  the  nature 
of  a   Sacrament,   and  hath   given  occasion  to   many  superstitions." 

It  niay  be  interesting  to  notice  here  that  this  vetoes  the  superstitious 
meaning  which  almost  universally  attaches  to  the  word  "sacrament." 
It  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Greek  fivovrf piOV,  which  is  used  by  the 
LXX  in  Daniel  ii.  18,  19,  27,  28,  29,  30,  47,  and  iv.  9,  and  is  always 
rendered  secret  in  our  English  version.  This  moreover  is  its  ordinary 
meaning  in  the  New  Testament.  But  the  word  was  even  then  acquir- 
ing the  meaning  usually  given  to  it  in  the  Greek  Fathers,  viz.,  a  sym- 
bol or  secret  sign.  See,  e.g..  Rev.  i.  20,  and  xvii.  5,  7.  And  this  is 
the  significance  of  the  English  word  "sacrament."  It  connotes  some- 
thing which  represents  something  else;  and  so  we  find  that  in  old 
writers  X^oah's  rainbow,  the  brazen  serpent,  etc.,  are  called  "sacra- 
ments." _  And  in  this  sense  it  is  that  the  bread  and  wine  in  the 
"Eucharist"  are  a  "sacrament";  they  represent  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  Therefore  to  hold  that  they  are  in  fact  His  body  and  blood  is 
to   "overthrow  the  nature   of   a  sacrament." 

Our  practice  of  kissing  the  book  in  taking  a  judicial  oath  is  in 
this  sense  a  "sacrament."  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was 
owing  to  some  symbolic  act  of  this  kind  that  the  Latin  word  sacrameru- 
turn  came   to   mean  a   soldier's   oath. 


50 


CHAPTER  V 


IS  CHRISTIANITY  DIVINE.^ 


IS  Christianity  a  Divine  revelation  ?  This  ques- 
tion must  not  be  settled  by  the  result  of  the 
preliminary  inquiry  here  proposed.  In  rejecting 
sacredotalism,  we  merely  clear  the  ground  for  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  main  question  upon  its  merits.  "The 
Reformation,"  says  Mr.  Goldwin  Smith,  "was  a 
tremendous  earthquake"  which  "shook  down  the 
fabric  of  medieval  religion."  "But,"  he  goes  on  to 
say,  "it  left  the  authority  of  the  Bible  unshaken, 
and  men  might  feel  that  the  destructive  process  had 
its  limit,  and  that  adamant  was  still  beneath  their 
feet." 

To  the  Bible,  then,  we  turn.  But  how  is  such  an 
inquiry  to  be  conducted?  The  unfairness  of  en- 
trusting the  defence  of  Christianity  to  any  who  are 
themselves  the  rejecters  of  Christianity  will  be  pal- 
pable to  every  one.  Here  the  right  of  audience  is 
only  to  the  Christian.  But,  in  making  this  conces- 
sion, the  sceptic  may  fairly  insist  on  maintaining 
the  place  of  critic,  if  not  of  censor.  Until  convinced, 
he  will  continue  to  consider,  reflect,  hesitate,  doubt. 

And  it  is  a  suspicious  circumstance  that  so  many 
who  claim  to  be  leaders  of  religious  thought,  and 
who  are  profesional  exponents  of  the  Christian  faith, 
seem  eager  not  only  to  eliminate  from  Christianity 
everything  that  is  distinctive,  but  also  to  divorce  it 

SI 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

from  much  with  which,  in  its  origin,  it  was  insep- 
arably associated.  They  are  strangely  anxious  to 
separate  it  from  the  Judaism  which  it  succeeded, 
and  upon  which  it  is  so  indisputably  founded.  As 
a  corollary  upon  this,  they  struggle  to  separate  the 
New  Testament  from  the  Old,  treating  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  especially  the  Pentateuch,  as  per- 
sons who  have  risen  in  the  world  are  prone  to  treat 
the  quondam  acquaintances  of  humbler  days.  As  a 
further  step,  they  betray  unmistakable  uneasiness, 
when  confronted  with  the  miraculous  in  the  Bible ; 
and  "the  old  evangelical  doctrine"  of  inspiration 
they  regard  with  undisguised  dislike,  if  not  con- 
tempt. 

No  well-informed  person  will  dispute  that  this  is 
a  fair  statement  of  the  position  assumed  by  a  school 
of  religious  thought  which  is  in  its  own  sphere  both 
influential  and  popular.  But  it  needs  no  more  than 
a  conventional  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament  to 
enable  us  to  assert  that  the  Christianity  of  Christ 
and  His  apostles  was  not  a  new  religion,  but  rather 
an  unfolding  and  fulfilment  of  the  Judaism  which 
preceded  it.  The  Christ  of  Christendom  was  a 
crucified  Jew — crucified  because  He  declared  Him- 
self to  l:)e  the  Jews'  Messiah ;  and  His  claims  upon 
our  homage  and  our  faith  are  inseparably  connected 
with  that  Messiahship. 

And  what  were  the  credentials  of  His  Messiah- 
ship?  To  some  extent  the  miracles  which  He 
wrought,  but  mainJy  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  And 
in  His  appeal  to  those  Scriptures  He  implicitly  as- 
serted that  they  were  in  the  strictest  sense  inspired. 

52 


Is  Christianity  Divine  f 


Ten  times  are  those  Scriptures  quoted  in  the  first 
four  chapters  of  the  new  Testament  as  being  the 
ipsissima  verba  of  the  Deity/  and  three  of  these 
quotations  are  from  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  the 
very  book  which  these  theologians  are  most  decided 
in  rejecting. 

The  language  of  the  "Sermon  on  the  Mount"  is,  if 
possible,  more  emphatic  still.  To  understand  its 
full  significance  we  must  bear  in  mind  what  Jose- 
phus  asserts,  that  by  all  Jews  the  Scriptures  "were 
justly  believed  to  be  Divine,  so  that,  rather  than 
speak  against  them,  they  were  ready  to  suffer  tor- 
ture or  even  death. "^  It  was  to  a  people  saturated 
with  this  belief  that  such  words  as  the  following 
were  spoken :  "Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you.  Till  heaven 
and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no 
wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled."  "The 
*jot'  (we  are  told)  is  the  Greek  iota,  the  Hebrew  yod, 
the  smallest  of  all  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The 
'tittle'  was  one  of  the  smallest  strokes  or  twists  of 
other  letters."  What  language,  then,  could  possi- 
bly assert  more  plainly  that,  so  far  from  coming  to 
set  up  a  new  religion,  as  these  Christian  teachers 
would  tell  us,  the  Nazarene  declared  His  mission  to 
be  the  recognition  and  fulfilment  of  the  old  Hebrew 
Scriptures  in  every  part,  even  to  the  minutest  detail? 

And  much  that  is  distinctly  miraculous  in  those 

■*  The  Revised  Version  emphasises  the  force  of  Sia  in  such  passages 
as  Matt.  i.  22:  "That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
Lord   through  the  prophet." 

2  Josephus,  Contra  Apion,  i.  8. 

53 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religioit 

Scriptures  was  specially  adopted  in  His  teaching; 
as,  for  example,  Noah's  deluge;  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah ;  Jonah  and  the  fish ;  Aloses 
and  the  burning  bush ;  the  heaven-sent  manna  in 
the  wilderness;  Elijah  and  his  mission  to  the  widow 
of  Sarepta;  Elisha  and  the  cure  of  Naaman's  lep- 
rosy by  bathing  in  the  Jordan. 

But,  we  are  told,  though  Christ  was  essentially 
Divine,  he  laid  aside  His  Divinity  with  a  view  to 
His  mediatorial  work.  And  His  ministry  was 
marked  by  the  imperfections  of  human  knowledge. 
In  proof  of  this,  appeal  is  made  to  the  Apostolic 
statement  that  He  "emptied  Himself."  Strange  it 
is  that  men  who  hold  "verbal  inspiration"  in  such 
contempt  should  lay  such  stress  upon  the  words  of 
Scripture!  But  let  that  pass.  The  subject  will  come 
up  again :  suffice  it  here  to  say  that  the  Apostle's 
language  will  not  support  the  heresy  that  is  based 
upon  it.  True  it  is  that  no  stronger  term  could  be 
found  to  describe  the  great  Renunciation  by  which 
the  Son  of  God  stripped  Himself  of  all  the  insignia 
of  Deity.  But  this  involved  no  change  of  personal- 
ity. When  King  Alfred  became  a  drudge  in  the 
swineherd's  cottasfe,  he  divested  himself  of  all  the 
externals  of  royalty,  but  he  did  not  cease  to  be 
King  Alfred.  And  the  story  of  the  burnt  cakes  loses 
its  significance  and  charm  if  we  forget  that  it  was 
with  full  consciousness  of  who  and  what  he  v/as 
that  he  bore  the  peasant's  reprimands.  And  the 
words  of  Christ  give  overwhelming  proof  that 
throughout  His  earthly  ministry  He  bore  His  suf- 
ferings with  full  knowledge  of  His  origin  and  glory, 

54 


is  Christiaiiiiy  Divine  ? 


and  that  His  teaching  was  not  characterised  by 
human  ignorance,  but  by  Divine  authority. 

If  this  be  forgotten,  moreover,  the  Apostolic  ex- 
hortation loses  all  its  meaning.  For  it  is  based  on 
this,  that  with  full  knowledge  of  His  riches  the  Son 
of  God  came  down  to  poverty ;  that  with  the  fullest 
consciousness  of  His  Deity  ''He  emptied  Himself 
and  took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was 
made  in  the  likeness  of  men."^ 

The  dilemma  in  which  this  places  the  Christian 
is  inexorable.  If  Christ  was  Divine,  the  truth  of 
everything  adopted  and  accredited  by  His  teaching 
is  placed  beyond  question.  To  plead  that,  with  a 
view  to  advance  His  Messianic  claims,  He  pandered 
to  Jewish  ignorance  and  prejudice,  is  not  only  to 
admit  that  He  was  merely  human,  but  to  endanger 
our  respect  for  Him  even  as  a  Rabbi.  And  yet 
Christian  teachers  have  the  temerity  to  suggest 
such  an  explanation  of  His  words.  Such  a  position 
is  utterly  untenable.  The  Christian  is,  to  borrow 
a  legal  term,  estopped  from  questioning  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament,  or  the  reality  of  the 
miracles  recorded  in  it ;  and  when  teachers  who  pro- 
fess to  be  Christians  question  both,  they  cannot  be 
surprised  if  they  are  charged  with  being  either  dis- 
honest or  credulous. 

"But,"  it  may  be  urged,  ''It  is  not  the  teaching  of 
Christ  which  is  disparaged,  but  only  the  record  of 

1  Phil.  n.  5-8;  cf.  2  Cor.  viii.  9.  T  cannot  turn  aside  here  to  discuss 
further  the  Kenosis  theory  of  the  Critics  (see  Chap.  XII.  post).  Every 
free  and  fearless  thinker  will  recognize  that  if  it  be  valid,  it  destroys 
the  Christian  revelation.  I  have  dealt  with  the  subject  in  other  books — 
Pseudo-criticism,  or  the  Higher  Criticism  and  its  Counterfeit;  The 
Bible  and  Modern  Criticism,  etc. 


55 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  mid  Religion 

that  teaching.  It  Is  here  that  allowance  must  be 
made  for  Jewish  ignorance  and  prejudice.  That 
the  Jews  believed  their  Scriptures  to  be  inspired  is 
admitted,  and  therefore  it  was  that  those  who  chron- 
icled the  words,  of  Christ  gave  that  colour  to  His 
doctrine.  The  New  Testament  is  marked  by  the 
same  imperfections  as  the  Old.  It  is  of  priceless 
value  as  the  record  of  Divine  facts,  but  it  is  upon 
those  facts  themselves,  and  not  upon  the  record  of 
them,  that  Christianity  is  founded." 

This  answer  is  plausible,  but  upon  examination  it 
will  prove  to  be  absolutely  fatal.  When  we  turn  to 
the  Gospels,  we  find  that  of  necessity  the  whole 
fabric  of  Christianity  stands  or  falls  with  our  accept- 
ance or  rejection  of  their  claims  to  be,  in  the  strict- 
est and  fullest  sense,  authentic.  Most  true  it  is 
that  the  system  rests  on  facts,  and  not  on  writings 
merely;  and  this  it  is,  indeed,  which  distinguishes 
it  from  all  other  religions.  But  such  is  the  character 
of  the  facts  on  which  it  is  based,  that  if  the  record 
of  them  be  disparaged,  belief  in  these  facts  is  sheer 
credulity.  The  public  facts  of  the  ministry  and 
death  of  Christ  are  as  well  authenticated  as  any 
other  events  of  ancient  history.  No  one  questions 
them.  But  the  entire  significance  of  those  facts 
depends  upon  their  relation  to  other  facts  behind 
them — facts  of  a  transcendental  character,  and  such 
as  no  amount  of  discredited  or  doubtful  testimony 
would  warrant  our  accepting. 

"But,"  It  may  perhaps  be  answered,  ''though  the 
record  was  human,  the  Person  of  whom  it  speaks 
was  more  than  human ;  the   whole  argument   de- 

56 


Is  Christianity  Divine  ? 


pends  upon  ignoring  the  great  fundamental  fact  of 
Christianity,  that  Christ  was  Himself  Divine."  But 
what  is  the  basis  of  our  belief  in  the  Deity  of  Christ? 
The  founder  of  Rome  was  said  to  be  the  divinely 
begotten  child  of  a  vestal  virgin.  -And  in  the  old 
Babylonian  mysteries  a  similar  parentage  was  as- 
cribed to  the  martyred  son  of  Semiramis,  gazetted 
Queen  of  Heaven.  What  grounds  have  we  then  for 
distinguishing  the  miraculous  birth  at  Bethlehem 
from  these  and  other  kindred  legends  of  the  ancient 
world? 

At  this  point  we  are  face  to  face  with  that  to 
which,  I  repeat,  no  consensus  of  untrustworthy 
testimony  could  lend  even  an  a  priori  probability.  If, 
therefore,  the  Gospels  be  not  authentic  and  authorita- 
tive records  of  the  mission  and  teaching  of  Christ,  we 
must  admit  that  Christianity  is  founded  on  a  Gali- 
Isean  legend.  And  if  we  accept  the  New  Testament 
we  are  excluded  from  rejecting  the  earlier  Scrip- 
tures which  were  so  unequivocally  accredited  by 
Christ  Himself.  If  His  authority  as  a  teacher  be 
rejected,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  records  of  His 
ministry  be  denied,  there  is  no  longer  any  foothold 
for  faith,  for  the  foundations  of  Christianity  are 
thus  destroyed.  And  while  the  superstitious  may 
cling  to  an  edifice  built  upon  the  sand,  clear-headed 
and  thoughtful  men  will  take  refuge  in  natural  re- 
ligion. 

Whatever  may  be  said,  therefore,  of  the  theo- 
logical school  here  under  review,  their  religion  is 
not  Christianity,  and  their  testimony  must  be  re- 
jected as  of  less  value  even  than  that  of  the  sacredo- 

57 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

talists.  Nor  can  any  one  justly  take  exception  to 
the  fairness  of  this  argument.  If  we  be  urged  to 
embark  in  a  gold-mine,  we  naturally  ask  whether 
those  who  commend  it  to  our  confidence  have  them- 
selves put  their  money  in  it.  Nor  will  this  avail 
to  satisfy  us  if  we  find  that  they  have  also  invested 
in  other  undertakings  which  we  know  to  be  worth- 
less. And  so  here :  we  are  entitled  to  put  men  upon 
proof,  not  only  of  the  sincerity  and  consistency  of 
their  faith,  but  also  of  its  reasonableness.  And  we 
find  that  the  faith  of  Christians  of  the  one  school 
includes  tenets  the  belief  in  which  implies  the  degra- 
dation of  reason,  and  that  the  unfaith  of  Christians 
of  the  other  school  undermines  Christianity  alto- 
gether. The  one  school  believes  too  much,  the 
other  believes  too  little.  With  the  one,  faith  degen- 
erates into  superstititon ;  with  the  other,  it  merges 
in  a  scepticism  which  is  as  real,  though  not  as  ra- 
tional or  consistent,  as  is  that  of  many  who  are  com- 
monly branded  as  infidels. 


58 


CHAPTER  VI 
MR.  A.  J.  Balfour's  scheme 

i^TyTE  are  without  any  rational  ground  for  be- 
"  lieving  in  science" ;  "We  are  without  any 
rational  ground  for  determining  the  logical  rela- 
tion which  ought  to  subsist  between  science  and 
religion."  Such  are  among  the  startling  theses 
maintained  by  the  author  of  A  Defence  of  Philosophic 
Doubt.  And  one  of  the  main  results  of  his  argu- 
ment is  stated  thus:  ''In  the  absence,  then,  of  rea- 
son, to  the  contrary,  I  am  content  to  regard  the  two 
great  creeds  by  which  we  attempt  to  regulate  our 
lives  as  resting  in  the  main  upon  separate  bases." 
A  protest  this  against  ''the  existence  of  a  whole 
class  of  'apologists'  the  end  of  whose  labours  ap- 
pears to  be  to  explain,  or  to  explain  away,  every 
appearance  of  contradiction  between  the  two." 

But  here  Mr.  Balfour  fails  of  his  usual  precision. 
A  definition  of  religion  is  wanting.  He  seems  some- 
times to  use  the  word  in  its  first  and  widest  sense, 
and  at  other  times  as  equivalent  to  a  particular  sys- 
tem of  belief,  and,  by  implication,  to  Christianity. 
A  consciousness  of  our  own  existence  is  the  founda- 
tion of  all  knowledge.  And  that  elementary  fact  is 
the  first  stepping-stone  toward  an  apprehension  of 
the  existence  of  God.  It  might  be  fairly  argued 
that  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  rests 
upon  a  surer  basis  than  our  knowledge  of  the  ex- 

59 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

ternal  world,  and  therefore  that  religion  in  that 
sense  takes  precedence  of  science.  But  such  a  plea 
is  unnecessary,  because  our  knowledge  of  the  exter- 
nal world  is,  for  the  practical  purposes  of  life,  abso- 
lute and  unquestioned.  We  may  be  content,  there- 
fore, to  assert  that  the  two  creeds  stand  upon  a  per- 
fect equality.^ 

And,  speaking  generally,  belief  in  both  is  univer- 
sal. There  are  exceptions,  doubtless — as,  for  ex- 
ample, "street  arabs  and  advanced  thinkers"  f  but 
this  does  not  af¥ect  the  argument.  Science  depends 
on  our  belief  in  the  external  world ;  religion  on  our 
belief  in  God.  Religious  feeling  springs  from  the 
felt  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  a  supreme  Power ; 
and,  as  Tyndall  justly  says,  "religious  feeling  is  as 
much  a  verity  as  any  other  part  of  human  con- 
sciousness, and  against  it,  on  its  subjective  side,  the 
waves  of  science  beat  in  vain."^ 

But  this  relates  to  what  is  called  natural  religion, 
and  it  is  not  until  we  pass  into  the  sphere  of  re- 
vealed religion  that  the  seeming  conflict  with  science 
arises.  The  difficulties  of  practical  men,  rhoreover, 
are  of  a  wholly  different  order  from  those  which 
perplex  the  philosophers.  Take,  for  example,  the 
argument  against  miracles.  An  intelligent  school- 
boy can  see  that  the  solution  of  the  problem  de- 
pends on  the  answer  we  make  to  the  question 
whether  there  be  a  God.  Even  John  Stuart  Mill 
admits  this.       To  acknowledge  the  existence  of  a 

^  "My  complaint  rather  is  that  of  the  two  creeds  which,  from  a  philo- 
sophical  point  of  view,  stand,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  upon  a  perfect 
equality,  one  should  be  set  up  as  a  standard  to  which  the  other  must 
necessarily  conform."—^   Defense  of  Philosophic  Doubt,   p.    303. 

2^   Defense  of  Philosophic  Doubt,  p.   319. 

3  Virchow  and  Evolution. 

60 


Mr,  A,  J.  Balfour^ s  Sclieme 


God  possessed  of  power  infinitely  greater  than  that 
of  man,  and  yet  to  insist  that  He  must  necessarily 
be  a  cipher  in  the  world — this  may  pass  for  philoso- 
phy, but  a  different  sort  of  word  would  describe  it 
better. 

And  as  with  the  so-called  ''laws"  of  science,  so 
also  is  it  with  its  theories.  Excepting  only  the  evo- 
lution hypothesis,  which  enjoys  a  certain  amount 
of  popularity,  common  men  care  nothing-  for  them. 
What  weighs  with  earnest  thinkers  who  are  real 
truth-lovers  is  that  ascertained  facts  appear  to  dis- 
prove the  truth  of  what  has  been  received  as  a  Di- 
vine revelation. 

But  treatises  such  as  those  of  which  A  Defence  of 
Philosophic  Doubt  is  a  most  striking  example,  are 
further  defective  in  that  they  defend  religion  upon 
a  ground  which  leaves  the  apologist  equally  free  to 
fall  back  upon  superstition,  as  to  vindicate  the 
claims  of  the  Bible  to  be  a  revelation.  And  as  a 
result  of  this,  in  discussing  the  foundations  of  be- 
lief they  ignore  the  doctrine  of  transcendental  faith, 
which  is  characteristic  of  Christianity. 

The  theological  argument  from  miracles  has,  at 
least  in  its  common  form,  no  scientific  or  Biblical 
sanction.  The  fact  of  a  miracle  is  a  proof  merely 
of  the  presence  of  some  power  greater  than  man's. 
That  such  a  power  is  necessarily  Divine  is  an  in- 
ference which  reason  refuses  to  accept,  and  Chris- 
tianity very  emphatically  denies.^ 

^  I  have  dealt  with  this  subject  in  discussing  Paley's  are:ument,  in 
The  Silence  of  God.  Scripture  is  explicit  that  miracles  have  been, 
and  may  be,  the  result  of  demoniacal  or  Satanic  agency.  The  Jews  ac- 
counted thus  for  the  miracles  of  Christ,  and  His  answer  was  an  appeal 
to  the  moral  character  of  His  works. 

01 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

Every  one  who  believes  in  a  God  must  be  pre- 
pared to  admit  that  there  may  be  creatures  in  the 
universe  far  superior  to  a  man  in  intelligence  and 
power;  and  even  an  atheistic  evolutionist  would  as 
freely  admit  this,  if  he  were  honest  and  fearless  in 
his  philosophy.^  It  is  entirely  a  question  of  evi- 
dence. 

But  this  we  need  not  discuss.  As  regards  the 
theologian  the  matter  stands  thus.  He  tells  us  that 
evil  beings  exist,  endowed  with  powers  adequate  to 
the  accomplishment  of  miracles  on  earth,  and  at  the 
same  time  he  maintains  that  the  fact  of  a  miracle  is 
a  proof  of  Divine  intervention.  But  in  the  New 
Testament  the  miracles  are  never  appealed  to  as  an 
''evidence,"  save  in  connection  with  the  preceding 
revelation  to  which  they  are  referred.  They  accred- 
ited the  Nazarene  as  being  the  promised  Messiah. 
And  "the  fact  is  allowed,"  not,  as  Bishop  Butler 
avers,  "that  Christianity  was  professed  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  world  upon  the  belief  of  miracles," 
but  that  the  claimant  to  Messiahship  was  rejected 
as  a  profane  deceiver  by  the  very  people  in  whose 
midst  the  miracles  were  wrousfht. 

And  it  is  a  further  fact  that  no  one  of  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  accounts  thus  for  his  own 
faith,  or  for  the  faith  of  his  converts.  That  their 
faith  was  an  inference  from  their  observation  of 
miracles — that  it  was  due  to  natural  causes  at  all — 
is  negatived  in  the  plainest  terms,  and  its  super- 
natural origin  and  character  are  explicitly  asserted. 

1  The  atheist,  of  course,  would  substitute  "'organism"  or  some  kindred 
word  for  "creature," 

62 


Mr.  A.  J.  Balfour^ s  Scheme 


So  long  as  the  testimony  was  to  the  Jew,  miracles 
abounded;  but  if  the  Apostle  Paul's  ministry  at 
Corinth  and  Thessalonica  may  be  accepted  as  typi- 
cal of  his  work  among  Gentiles,  his  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  and  Thessalonians  emphatically  dis- 
prove the  idea  that  miracles  were  made  the  basis 
of  his  preaching. 

A  single  quotation  from  each  will  suffice.  "The 
Jews  require  a  sign"  (he  says ;  that  is,  they  claimed 
that  the  preaching  should  be  accredited  by  miracles), 
''and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom"  (that  is,  they 
posed  as  rationalists  and  philosophers)  :  "but"  (he 
declares,  in  contrast  with  both)  "we  preach  Christ 
crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and  unto 
the  Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  which  are 
called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  Power  of 
God,  and  the  Wisdom  of  God."  And  to  the  Thes- 
salonians he  writes,  "When  ye  received  the  Word  of 
God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it  not  as  the 
word  of  men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth  the  Word  of  God." 

Now,  no  one  who  will  examine  these  statements 
fairly  can  fail  to  recognise  their  force  and  meaning. 
They  do  not  indicate  a  belief  resulting  from  the 
examination  of  miracles  performed  by  the  Apostles, 
but  a  faith  of  an  altogether  different  character.  We 
need  to  protest  against  the  folly  and  dishonesty  of 
adapting  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  His  apostles  to 
modern  views,  and  calling  the  name  of  Christian 
over  the  hybrid  system  thus  formed.  Such  a  sys- 
tem may  be  admirable,  but  it  is  not  Christianity. 
For  the  Christian  is  supposed  to  have  a  faith  which 
is  produced   and   sustained  by   his   being   brought 

63 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

into  immediate  relations  with  God.  No  one,  of 
course,  will  deny  that  the  God  whose  creatures  we 
are  can  so  speak  to  us  that  His  Word  shall  carry 
with  it  the  conviction  that  it  is  Divine.  And  if  it  be 
demanded  why  it  is  that  all  do  not  accept  it,  the 
Christian  will  answer  that  man's  spiritual  depravity 
renders  a  special  intervention  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
necessary. 

No  one,  again,  will  deny  that  formerly  this  part 
of  the  Christian  system  was  generally  accepted  by 
professed  Christians.  But  it  has  been  given  up, 
of  course,  by  all  who  have  ceased  to  regard  the  Bible 
as  a  Divine  revelation.  Naturally  so,  for  the  one 
part  of  the  system  depends  on  the  other.  None  but 
the  superstitious  suppose  that  God  speaks  to  us 
save  through  the  Scriptures,  and  once  we  give  up 
the  old  belief  of  Christendom,  that  the  Scriptures 
are  what  they  claim  to  be,  the  Christian  theory  of 
faith  becomes  untenable. 

Christianity  stands  or  falls  according  to  the  con- 
clusion we  arrive  at  here.^  Hence  the  special  diffi- 
culty which  embarrasses  the  consideration  of  the 
question.  In  litigation,  a  case  can  never  come  be- 
fore a  jury  until  some  definite  propositions  are 
ascertained,  which  the  one  side  maintains  and  the 

1  It  will  not  avail  to  urge  the  undoubted  fact  that  some  of  the  strong- 
est and  most  cultured  and  most  subtle  intellects  of  our  own  age  and  of 
preceding  ages  have  accepted  the  Bible  as  beine;  strictly  and  altogether 
God-breathed.  The  fact  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  there  is  nothing 
intrinsically  absurd  in  such  a  belief,  or  in  the  Christian  system  which 
depends  upon  it.  Rut  if  its  truth  could  be  tlius  established,  we  must 
be  prepared  to  accept  also  whatever  is  believed  by  men  of  equal  calibre 
and  fame.  But  some  such  believe  in  transubstantiation,  some  in  evolu- 
tion, some  even  in  atheism — for  atheism  is  as  much  a  positive  faith  as 
theism. 

64 


Mr,  A.  J.  Balfour^ s  Scheme 


other  side  denies.  But  in  this  controversy  "the 
issues"  are  never  settled.  The  Hues  of  attack  and 
defence  never  meet.  The  assailant  ignores  the 
strength  of  the  Christian  position ;  and  the  Chris- 
tian, entrenched  in  that  position,  is  wholly  un- 
reached by  the  objections  and  difficulties  of  the 
assailant. 

A  Defence  of  Philosophic  Doubt — to  revert  to 
that  treatise  again  for  a  moment — is  an  attempt  to 
arbitrate  between  the  two  without  joining  hands 
Avith  either.  Its  author  is  liable  to  be  challenged 
thus :  'Tf  your  treatise  be  intended  as  a  defence  of 
natural  religion,  it  is  unnecessary ;  for  there  is  clear- 
ly no  conflict  between  science  and  natural  religion. 
But  if  it  be  a  defence  of  revealed  religion,  that  is,  of 
Christianity,  it  is  inadequate;  for  you  must  fall  back 
upon  the  Bible,  and  if  you  do  so  we  will  undermine 
your  whole  position  by  proving  that  essential  parts 
of  it  are  inconsistent  with" — ''the  doctrines  of 
science,"  the  scientist  is  sure  to  say,  thus  destroy- 
ing his  entire  argument,  and  leaving  himself  help- 
lessly at  the  mercy  of  INIr.  Balfour's  pitiless  logic. 
But  if  he  were  not  misled  through  mistaking  his 
hobby  for  a  real  horse,  he  would  say,  ''inconsistent 
with  ascertained  facts";  and  this  position,  if  proved, 
would  refute  Christianity. 

For  example :  the  miraculous  destruction  of  the 
cities  of  the  plain  is  one  of  the  seemingly  incredi- 
ble things  in  Scripture.  The  scientist  rejects  the 
narrative  as  being  opposed  to  science,  just  as,  on 
the  same  ground,  the  African  rejected  the  statement 
that  water  became  so  solid  that  men  could  walk 

65 


A  Doubter* s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

upon  it.  But  if  the  scientist  could  fix  the  site  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  point  to  the  condition  of 
the  soil  as  proof  that  no  such  phenomenon  as  is  de- 
tailed in  Genesis  could  have  occurred  there,  the  fact 
would  be  fatal  not  only  to  the  authority  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, but  to  the  Messianic  claims  of  the  Nazar- 
ene,  who  identified  himself  with  it.  But  the  scientist 
can  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  On  the  contrary,  the 
admitted  facts  confirm  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  nar- 
rative, and  those  who  regard  that  narrative  as  a 
legend  would  urge  that  an  ignorant  and  supersti- 
tious age  sought  thus  to  account  for  the  extraordi- 
nary phenomena  of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  district 
surrounding  it. 

The  narrative  of  the  Jewish  captivity  in  Babylon, 
again,  was  formerly  a  favourite  battle-ground  in  this 
way;  and  in  view  of  the  deciphered  cuneiform  in- 
scriptions, and  other  discoveries  of  recent  years,  it 
is  an  interesting  question  whether  the  Christians  or 
the  sceptics  displayed  the  greatest  unwisdom  in  the 
controversy. 

The  fight  at  this  moment  wages  chiefly  round  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  creation.  And  here  it  must 
be  admitted  that  while  in  theolof^^ical  circles  no 
one  need  hesitate  to  declare  his  doubts  upon  this 
subject,  a  man  must  indeed  have  the  courage  of  his 
opinions  to  own  himself  a  believer  in  Moses  when 
among  the  Professors.  Intolerance  of  this  kind 
savours  of  persecution,  and  persecution  generally 
secures  a  temporary  success.  It  Is  only  the  few 
who  ever  set  themselves  to  make  headway  against 
the    prevailing   current.      If   the   shout,    "Great    is 

66 


Mr.  A.  J.  Balfaur^s  Scheme 


Diana  of  the  Epheslans!"  be  kept  up  "by  the  space 
of  two  hours,"  even  staid  municipal  officials  will 
yield  to  it;  and  a  two  hours'  seance  of  the  Profes- 
sors will  silence  the  doubts  of  ordinary  folk  as  to 
the  infallible  wisdom  of  science. 

Upon  any  one  in  whom  polemical  instincts  are 
strong,  the  effect  is  wholly  different,  and  in  all 
seriousness  it  may  be  averred  that  if  Moses  had 
written  as  a  heathen  philosopher,  his  cosmogony 
would  now  be  held  up  to  the  admiration  of  mankind, 
and  his  name  would  be  venerated  in  all  the  learned 
societies  of  the  world.  But  his  writings  claim  to  be 
a  Divine  revelation :  hence  the  contempt  which  they 
excite  in  the  minds  of  the  baser  sort  of  men,  who 
regard  everything  which  savours  of  religion  as  a 
fraud,  and  the  impatience  shown,  even  by  "men  of 
light  and  leading,"  toward  any  one  who  wishes  to 
keep  an  open  mind  upon  the  subject. 

The  Mosaic  cosmogony  has  been  called  "the 
proem  to  Genesis."  But  more  than  this,  it  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  proem  to  the  Bible  as  a  whole. 
And  having  regard  to  the  importance  of  the  subject, 
and  to  the  interest  which-  it  excites,  a  chapter  shall 
be  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  it. 


67 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  COSMOGONY  OF  GENESIS 

1AVOW  myself  a  believer  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  if  a  personal  reference  may  be  pardoned, 
I  would  say  that  my  faith  is  not  to  be  accounted 
for  either  by  want  of  thought,  or  by  ignorance  of 
the  objections  and  difficulties  which  have  been 
urged  by  scientists  and  sceptics.  But  just  as  the 
studies  which  charm  the  naturalist  are  an  unknown 
world  to  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the  book  of 
nature,  so  also  the  elements  which  make  the  Bible 
a  fascinating  volume  to  the  believer  do  not  exist 
for  those  who  fail  to  possess  the  clew  to  its  mys- 
teries. "Truth  brings  out  the  hidden  harmony, 
where  unbelief  can  only  with  a  dull  dogmatism 
deny.'' 

These  words  are  Pusey's.  And  in  the  same 
connection  he  says  in  effect  that  the  Bible  is  its 
own  defence,  the  part  of  the  apologist  being  merely 
to  beat  oft*  attacks. 

And  it  is  in  the  spirit  of  these  words  that  I 
would  deal  with  the  present  question.  Nor  will  it 
be  difficult  to  show  that  wdiile  among  scientists 
generally  the  cosmogony  of  Genesis  is  ''a  principal 
subject  of  ridicule,"  their  laughter  may  not,  after 
all,  be  the  outcome  of  superior  wisdom. 

It  would  be  interesting  and  instructive  to  recapit- 
ulate the  controvers}'  on  this  subject,  and  to  mark 

68 


The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis 


the  various  positions  which  have  been  successively 
occupied  or  abandoned  by  the  disputants,  as  one 
or  another  of  the  fluctuating  theories  of  science  has 
gained  prominence,  or  newly  found  fossils  have 
added  to  "the  testimony  of  the  rocks."  But  I  will 
content  myself  with  recalling  the  main  incidents 
of  the  last  great  tournament  upon  "the  proem  to 
Genesis."  I  allude  to  the  discussion  between  Mr. 
Gladstone  and  Professor  Huxley  in  the  pages  of 
the  Xineteenth  Century  some  twenty  years  ago. 

In  The  Dazvn  of  Creation  and  Worship  Mr.  Glad- 
stone sought  to  establish  the  claims  of  the  Book 
of  Genesis  to  be  a  Divine  revelation,  by  showing 
that  the  order- of  creation  as  there  recorded  has 
been  "so  afifirmed  in  our  time  by  natural  science 
that  it  may  be  taken  as  a  demonstrated  conclusion 
and  established  fact."  Mr.  Huxley's  main  assault 
upon  this  position  was  apparently  successful.  His 
main  assault,  I  say,  because  his  collateral  argu- 
ments were  not  always  worthy  of  him.  His 
contention,  for  example,  that  the  creation  of  the 
''air  population"  was  contemporaneous  with  that 
of  the  "water  population"  depends  upon  the  quibble 
that  both  took  place  within  four  and  twenty  hours. 
i\Ir.  Gladstone  proclaimed  that  science  and  Gene- 
sis w^ere  perfectly  in  accord  as  regards  the  order 
of  life  which  appeared  upon  our  globe.  To  which 
Mr.   Huxley  replied  as  follows : — 

"It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  terrestrial  lizards 
and  other  reptiles  allied  to  lizards  occur  in  the  Per- 
mian strata.  It  is  further  agreed  that  the  Triassic 
strata  were  deposited  after  these.  ^loreover,  it  is 
well  known  that,  even  if  certain  footprints  are  to  be 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

taken  as  unquestionable  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
birds,  they  are  not  known  to  occur  in  rocks  earHer 
than  the  Trias,  while  indubitable  remains  of  birds 
are  to  be  met  with  only  much  later.  Hence  it  fol- 
lows that  natural  science  does  not  'affirm'  the  state- 
ment that  birds  were  made  on  the  fifth  day,  and 
'everything  that  creepeth  on  the  ground'  on  the 
sixth,  on  which  Mr.  Gladstone  rests  his  order;  for, 
as  is  shown  by  Leviticus,  the  'Mosaic  writer'  in- 
cludes lizards  among  his  'creeping  things.'  " 

The  following  is  the  quotation  from.  Leviticus 
above  referred  to  : — 

''And  these  are  they  which  are  unclean  unto  you 
among  the  creeping  things  that  creep  upon  the 
earth;  the  weasel,  and  the  mouse,  and  the  great 
lizard  after  its  kind,  and  the  gecko,  and  the  land- 
crocodile,  and  the  lizard,  and  the  sand-lizard,  and 
the  chamelon.  These  are  they  wdiich  are  unclean 
unto  3-0U  among  all  that  creep."  ^ 

"The  merest  Sunday-school  exegesis,  therefore" 
(Mr.  Huxley  urged)  "suffices  to  prove  that  when 
the  Mosaic  writer  in  Gen.  i.  24  speaks  of  creeping 
things  he  means  to  Include  lizards  among  them." 

A  charming  specimen  this  certainly  Is  of  "the 
merest  Sunday-school  exegesis."  The  argument 
which  so  completely  satisfied  its  author  and 
embarrassed  his  opponent  is  nothing  but  an 
ad  captandum  appeal  to  the  chance  rendering  of  our 
English  Bible.  If  the  disputants  had  referred  the 
question  to  some  more  erudite  authority  than  the 
Sunday-school,  they  would  have  discovered  that 
the  word  translated  "creeping  thing"  in  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  Leviticus  has  no  affinity  whatever  with 

1  Lev.  xi.   29-31,   R.V. 

70 


The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis 


the  word  so  rendered  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse 
of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  whereas  it  is  the 
identical  word  which  our  translators  have  rendered 
"moving  creature"  in  the  twentieth  verse  which 
records  the  first  appearance  of  animal  life.^ 

Science  proclaims  the  seniority  of  land  reptiles 
in  the  genesis  of  life  on  earth,  and  the  despised 
Book  of  Genesis  records  that  ''creeping  things," 
which,  as  Huxley  insisted,  must  include  land  rep- 
tiles, were  the.  first  "moving  creatures"  which  the 
Creator's  Hat  called  into  existence. 

"Hoist  with  his  own  petard"  may  therefore 
tersely  describe  the  result  of  Huxley's  attack. 

With  his  old-world  courtesy  Mr.  Gladstone  pro- 
posed a  reference  to  a  distinguished  American 
scientist.  "There  is  no  one,"  Mr.  Huxley  replied, 
"to  whose  authority  I  am  more  readily  disposed 
to  bow  than  that  of  my  eminent  friend  Professor 
Dana's  decision,  in  the  following  words,  was 
published  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  August, 
1886.  "I  agree  in  all  essential  points  with  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, and  I  believe  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
and  science  are  in  accord."^ 

But  this  is  not  all.  Six  years  later  I  challenged 
Mr.  Huxley  on  this  subject  in  the  columns  of  the 
Times  newspaper.  He  sought  to  evade  the  issue 
by  pleading  that  the  real  question  involved  was  that 

^  The  word  in  ver.  24  is  reJimes;  but  in  ver.  20  it  is  shehretz,  which 
occurs  ten    times    in    Lev.    xi. 

It  was  left  to  me  to  bring  this  to  light,  and  I  received  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's cordial   acknowledgments   for  calling  his   attention  to   it. 

^  The  Gladstone  and  Huxley  articles  appeared  in  the  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury in  the  later  months  of  1885  and  in  January  and  February,  1886. 
And  Mr.  Gladstone's  articles  were  in  part  reproduced  in  his  Impreg- 
nable Rock  of  Holy  Scripture. 


71 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

of  the  supernatural  versus  evolution.  This  evoked 
a  powerful  letter  from  the  late  Duke  of  Argyll, 
denouncing  the  reference  to  the  supernatural  as 
savouring  of  ''bad  science  and  worse  philosophy," 
and  warning  Mr.  Huxley  that  in  the  new  position 
in  w^iich  he  sought  to  take  refuge  "he  would  not 
have  the  support  of  the  most  eminent  men  of 
science  of  the  United  Kingdom."  In  a  final  letter 
I  restated  the  question,  and  again  challenged  Mr. 
Huxley  either  to  establish  or  to  abandon  his 
contention  that  Genesis  and  science  were  in  antag- 
onism. His  only  reply  was  a  letter  suggesting,  in 
his  grandest  style,  that  the  public  w^ere  tired  of 
the  controversy.  But  it  was  not  the  public  that 
were  tired  of  it.^ 

The  fact  remains  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  position 
stands  unshaken.  The  fact  remains  that  one  Avho 
has  had  no  equal  in  this  age  as  a  scientific  contro- 
versialist entered  the  lists  to  attack  it,  and  retired 
discomfited  and  discredited.  Mr.  Gladstone's  thesis, 
therefore  holds  the  field.  "The  order  of  creation 
as  recorded  in  Genesis  has  been  so  affirmed  in  our 
time  by  natural  science  that  it  may  be  taken  as  a 
demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact." 
Are  we  then  to  conclude  that  when  Genesis  was 
written  biological  science  was  as  enlightened  and 
as  far  advanced  as  it  is  to-day?  Or  shall  we  adopt 
the  more  reasonable  alternative,  that  "the  Mosaic 
narrative"  is  a  Divine  revelation  P^ 

Ji  The  correspondence  above  referred  to  will  be  found  in  the  Times 
of  January  23  and  26  and  February  1,  3,  4,  8,  and   11    (1892). 

2  The  "mere  coincidence"  theory  is  unworthy  of  notice,  for  the 
matheniatician  will  tell  us  that  the  order  of  any  seven  events  may  be 
<jiven   in   more  than  five   thousand    ways. 

I    cannot    refrain    from    adding    the    following    extract    from    a    letter 

72 


The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis 


All  this  of  course  will  weigh  nothing  with  men 
who  have  prejudged  the  question.  First,  there  are 
the  religious  teachers  of  that  school  whose  role  it 
appears  to  be  to  import  the  raw  material  of  German 
rationalism  and  to  retail  it  with  a  veneer  of  British 
piety  to  suit  the  British  market.  And,  secondly, 
there  are  the  scientists  of  the  materialistic  school, 
to  whom  the  very  name  of  God  is  intolerable. 

A  few  years  since,  Lord  Kelvin's  dictum,  already 
quoted,^  gave  these  men  an  opportunity  of  "glory- 
ing in  their  shame";  and  they  eagerly  availed 
themselves  of  it.  His  assertion  that  "scientific 
thought"  compelled  belief  in  God  set  the  whole 
pack  in  full  cry.  The  acknowledgment  even  of  "a 
directive  force,"  they  declared,  "in  efifect  wipes 
out  the  whole  position  won  for  us  by  Darwin." 

This  clearly  indicates  that  the  only  value  they 
put  upon  their  hypothesis  is  that  it  enables  them  to 
get  rid  of  God;  and  if  it  fails  of  this  it  is,  in  their 
estimation,  worthless.  What  must  be  the  moral,  or 
indeed  the  intellectual  condition  of  men  who  regard 
the  negation  of  God  as  "a  position  won  for  them"  !^ 

I  received  from  Mr.  Gladstone  after  the   Times  correspondence  closed: — 

"As  to  the  chapter  itself"  (Gen.  i.),  "I  do  not  regard  it  merely  as 
a  defensible  point  in  a  circle  of  fortifications,  but  as  a  grand  founda- 
tion of  the  entire  fabric  of  the  Holy  Scriptures." 

1  See  p.  23,  anie.  The  Times  report  of  Lord  Kelvin's  words  led  to 
his  repeating  them  in  a  letter  to  that  journal  (May  4,  1903),  and  this 
gave  rise  to  the  correspondence  above  referred  to.  There  was  a  "lead- 
ing   article"    upon    it    on    May    13th. 

~  This  is  a  libel  upon  Darwin.  And  in  saying  this  I  do  not  forget 
his  letter  of  March  29,  1863.  to  Sir  Joseph  Hooker.  But  if  that  let- 
ter bears  the  meaning  these  men  put  upon  it  his  words  quoted  on 
pe.  25,  ante,  prove  that  he  is  wholly  unworthy  of  respect.  My 
lingering  belief  in  human  nature  leads  me  to  account  for  that  letter  as 
I  would  wish  to  account  for  Lord  Tennyson's  avowal  of  infidelity 
(^NineteentJi  Century,  June,  1903,  p.  1070).  Great  men  are  very  human, 
and  when  in  bad  company  they  sometimes  behave  like  schoolboys  and 
are  tempted  to  say  things  which  in  their  better  moments  they  would 
deplore. 

1   may  add  that  a   friend   of  mine  who   was  much  with   Darwin   during 

73 


A  Doubter  s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


But,  it  may  be  asked,  whar  about  evolution  ?  The 
materialistic  evolution  of  Herbert  Spencer  is  as 
dead  as  its  author.  And  even  Darwin's  more  en- 
lightened biological  scheme  is  now  discredited.  For 
it  is  recognised  that  something  more  than  Darwin- 
ism offers  is  needed  to  account  for  the  phenomena 
of  life.  The  evolution  h%*pothesis  is  thoroughly 
philosophical :  and  that  is  all  that  can  be  said  for  it. 
for  it  is  unproved  and  seemingly  incapable  of  proof. 
That  "creative  power"  may  have  worked  in  this 
way  may  be  conceded.  But  if  so,  the  process  must 
have  been  divinely  controlled  and  strictly  limited. 
This  much  is  made  clear  both  by  the  facts  of  Na- 
ture and  the  statements  of  Scripture;  but  beyond 
this  we  cannot  go. 

''Evolution  is  an  integration  of  matter  and  con- 
comitant dissipation  of  motion,  during  which  the 
matter  passes  from  an  indefinite  incoherent  homo- 
geneity* tc  ;  ^::ite  coherent  heterogeneity',  and 
during  whicl:  :lic  retained  motion  undergoes  a  paral- 
lel transformation/'  If  this  cacophonous  sentence 
be  translated  into  English,  it  will  be  found  to  con- 
tain some  element  of  truth.  Herbert  Spencer  does 
not  here  pretend,  as  the  careless  reader  of  his  phil- 
osophy might  suppose,  that  matter  itself  is  capable 
of  producing  any  such  results.  Every  change  is 
due  to  motion,  and  behind  motion  is  the  power 
which  causes  it.  What  and  where  that  power  15. 
Herbert  Spencer  cannot  tell.  He  calls  it  Force,  but 
he  might  just  as  well  term  it  Jupiter  or  Baal.  Were 
he  to  assert  that  it  is  unknown,  no  one  could  object, 

bis  bst  ilhiess  asares  me  that  be  expressed  the  greatest  reverence   for 
res  and  boce  tcsdmooj  to  their  Talnc 

74 


The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis 


however  much  he  differed  from  him.  But  with  the 
aggressive  insolence  of  unbelief  he  declares  it  to  be 
"unknowable,"  thus  shutting  the  door  f:r  ever 
against  all  religion. 

The  Christian  reccrrizts  the  force,  and  the  effects 
it  has  produced.  '_r  I  -  reftrs  all  to  God.  He  al- 
lows a  pristine  c:  :'  r  '-::er  described  by  the 
philosopher  as  '  ar.  :.  .r.:.::-  incoherent  homogen- 
eity''; but  as  an  aiterr.ative  formula  for  expressing 
this  he  confidently  offers  both  to  the  simple  and  the 
learned  the  well-known  words.  "The  earth  was 
waste  and  void."  As  he  goes  en  to  consider  the 
^'integration  of  matter  and  concomitant  dissipation 
of  motion."  'And  God  said"  is  his  method  of  ac- 
counting for  the  phenomena.  The  philosopher  ad- 
mits that  not  even  the  slightest  change  can  have 
taken  place  save  as  a  result  of  some  new  impulse 
imparted  by  Inscrutable  Force.  The  Christian,  in  a 
spirit  of  still  higher  philosophy,  accounts  for  every 
change  by  Divine  inter\-ention.  It  is  thus  that  he 
explains  the  "coherent  heterogeneity-" — or,  to  trans- 
late these  words  into  the  vernacular,  the  exquisite 
order  and  variety  of  nature. 

Here  I  turn  to  the  narrative.  The  earth  existed. 
but  it  was  "desolate  and  empty."  a  mere  waste  of 
waters,   wrapped  in  impenetrable   darkness.       The 


changes  recorded  are,  first,  the  dawn  of  light,  and 
then  the  formation  of  an  atmosphere,  followed  by 
the  retreat  of  the  waters  to  their  ocean  bed:  then 
the  dry  land"  became  clothed  with  verdure,  and 
sun  and  moon  and  stars  appeared.  The  lausrhter 
formerly  excited  by  the  idea  of  light  apart   from 

"5 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

the  sun  has  died  away  with  increasing  knowledge ; 
and,  in  our  ignorance  of  the  characteristics  of  that 
primeval  light,  it  is  idle  to  discuss  the  third-day 
vegetation.  It  may  possibly  have  been  the  "rank 
and  luxuriant  herbage"  of  which  our  coal-beds  have 
been  formed;  for  one  statement  in  the  narrative 
seems  strongly  to  favour  the  suggestion  that  our 
present  vegetation  dates  only  from  the  fifth  or 
sixth  day.^ 

But  this  brings  up  the  question.  What  was  the 
creation  da^^?  No  problem  connected  with  the 
cosmogony  has  greater  interest  and  importance; 
none  is  beset  with  greater  difficulties.  The  passage 
itself  seems  clearly  to  indicate  that  the  word  is 
used  in  a  symbolic  sense.  When  dealing  with  a 
period  before  man  existed  to  mark  the  shadow  on 
the  dial,  and  before  the  sun  could  have  cast  that 
shadow,  it  is  not  easy  to  appreciate  the  reason,  or 
indeed  the  meaning,  of  such  a  division  of  time  as 
our  natural  day.  ''Days  and  years  and  seasons" 
seem  plainly  to  belong  to  our  present  solar  sys- 
tem, and  this  is  the  express  teaching  of  the  four- 
teenth verse. - 

The  problem  may  be  stated  thus:  As  man  is  to 
God,  so  his  day  of  four  and  twenty  hours  is  to  the 
Divine  day  of  creation.  Possibly  indeed  the  ''eve- 
ning and  morning"  represent  the  interval  of  cessa- 
tion from  work,  which  succeeds  and  completes  the 
day.  The  words  are,  "And  there  was  evening,  and 
there  was  morning,  one  day." 

1  Gen.   ii.   5,   R.V. 

2  That  the  earth  is  older  than  the  sun  may  at  one  time  have  ap- 
peared impossihle,  if  not  ridiculous.  I'-ut  it  seems  to  be  involved  in 
the  meteoric  hypothesis. 

1^ 


The  Cos7nogony  of  Genesis 


The  symbolism  is  maintained  throughout.  As 
man's  working  day  is  brought  to  a  close  by  eve- 
ning, which  ushers  in  a  period  of  repose,  lasting  till 
morning  calls  him  back  to  his  daily  toil,  so  the 
great  Artificer  is  represented  as  turning  aside  from 
His  work  at  the  end  of  each  *'day"  of  creation,  and 
again  resuming  it  when  another  morning  dawned. 

Is  not  this  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  mode  in 
which  Scripture  speaks  of  God?  It  tells  us  of  His 
mouth  and  eyes  and  nostrils.  His  hand  and  arm. 
It  speaks  of  His  sitting  in  the  heavens,  and  bowing 
Himself  to  hear  the  prayer  ascending  from  the 
earth.  It  talks  of  His  repenting  and  being  angry. 
And  if  any  one  cavils  at  this  he  may  fairly  be  asked, 
In  what  other  language  could  God  speak  to  men? 

Nor  let  any  one  fall  back  on  the  figment  that 
a  Divine  day  is  a  period  of  a  thousand  years.  With 
God,  we  are  told,  a  day  is  as  a  thousand  years,  and 
a  thousand  years  as  one  day.  In  a  word,  the  seem- 
ing paradox  of  the  transcendental  philosophy  is  en- 
dorsed by  the  express  teaching  of  Scripture  that 
time  is  a  law  of  human  thought.  When,  therefore, 
God  speaks  of  working  for  six  days  and  resting  on 
the  seventh,  we  must  understand  the  words  in  the 
same  symbolic  sense  as  when  He  declares  that  His 
hand  has  made  all  these  things.^ 

But  the  mention  of  the  creation  sabbath  is  the 
crowning  proof  of  the  symbolic  character  of  the 
creation  "day."  God  "rested  on  the  seventh  day 
from  all  His  work  which  He  had  made."  Are  we, 
then,  to  suppose  that  He  resumed  the  work  when  four 

1  Isa.   Ixvi.   2. 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

and  twenty  hours  had  passed?  Here,  at  least,  reve- 
lation and  science  are  at  one :  the  creation  sabbath 
has  continued  during  all  the  ages  of  historic  time. 
God  is  active  in  His  universe,  pace  the  atheist  and 
the  infidel,  but  the  Creator  rests.  Having  regard 
then  to  the  admitted  fact  that  the  creation  sabbath 
is  a  vast  period  of  time,  surely  the  working  days  of 
creation  must  be  estimated  on  the  same  system. 

My  object  here,  however,  is  not  to  frame  a  sys- 
tem of  interpretation,  but  rather  to  enter  a  protest 
against  confounding  the  express  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture with  any  system  of  interpretation  whatever. 
Nor  am  I  attempting  to  prove  the  inspiration,  or 
even  the  truth  of  Scripture.  My  aim  is  merely  to 
*'beat  off  attacks."  I  hold  myself  clear  of  the  sin 
of  Uzzah.  I  am  not  putting  my  hand  upon  the  ark : 
as  Dante  pleaded,  I  am  dealing  with  the  oxen  that 
are  shaking  the  ark — unintelligent  creatures  who 
have  no  sense  of  its  sanctity,  or  even  of  its  worth. 

And  here  I  am  reminded  of  Huxley's  words,  "that 
it  is  vain  to  discuss  a  supposed  coincidence  be- 
tween Genesis  and  science  unless  we  have  first 
settled,  on  the  one  hand,  what  Genesis  says  and, 
on  the  other,  what  science  says."  This  is  admirable. 
Let  us  distinguish,  therefore,  between  ''what  Gene- 
sis says"  and  what  men  say  about  Genesis.  And 
let  us  not  be  either  misled  or  alarmed  by  attacks 
upon  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  based  on  *'the  merest 
Sunday-school  exegesis"  on  the  one  hand,  or  on  the 
theories  of  science  on  the  other.  The  facts  of 
science  in  no  way  clash  Avith  Scripture.  And  as  the 
prince  of  living  scientists  declares — I   quote   Lord 

78 


The  Cosmogony  of  Genesis 


Kelvin's  words  again — "scientific  thought  is  com- 
pelled to  accept  the  idea  of  creative  power." 

Of  the  origin  of  our  world  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  tells  us  nothing  save  that  *'in  the  begin- 
ning," whenever  that  was,  God  "created"  it.  It 
may  be,  as  Tyndall  said  in  his  Belfast  address,  that 
"for  aeons  embracing  untold  millions  of  years,  this 
earth  has  been  the  theatre  of  life  and  death."  But 
as  to  this  the  "Mosaic  narrative"  is  silent.  It  deals 
merely  with  the  renewing  and  refurnishing  of  our 
planet  as  a  home  for  man.  And  this,  moreover,  to 
prepare  the  foundation  for  the  supreme  revelation 
of  redemption.  Let  the  authority  of  Scripture  be 
undermined,  and  the  whole  fabric  of  the  Christian 
system  is  destroyed.  But  in  these  easy-going  days 
the  majority  of  "those  who  profess  and  call  them- 
selves Christians,"  being  wholly  destitute  of  the  en- 
thusiasm of  faith,  are  helpless  when  confronted  by 
the  dogmatism  of  unbelief.  It  is  a  day  of  opinions, 
not  of  faith,  and  widespread  apostasy  is  the  natural 
result.^ 

■^  While  correcting  the  proofs  of  these  pages  I  have  received  a  news- 
paper report  of  a  sermon  preached  by  the  Bishop  of  Manchester  in  his 
Cathedral,  in  which  he  justifies  the  rejection  of  Gen.  i.,  because  "it 
seems  to  be  an  intellectual  impossibility  that  God  should  reveal  to  man 
an  exact  account  of  the  creation  of  the  universe."  _  But  there  is  not  a 
word  in  Gen.  i.  about  "the  creation  of  the  universe,"  save  in  the 
opening  sentence.  The  word  "create"  is  not  used  again  till  we  come 
to  the  work  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  "days"  (verses  21  and  27).  And 
when  it  is  said  that  God  "made"  the  two  great  lights  and  the  stars, 
the  word  is  the  same  as  that  used  elsewhere  of  "making"  a  feast.  And 
when  it  is  said  that  He  "set"  them  in  the  heavens,  it  is  the  same  word 
as  is  used  of  "appointing"  cities  of  refuge.      (See   Appendix,   Note  I.) 

The  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  this  I  cannot  discuss  here.  But 
it  shows  that  Huxley  was  right:  "What  Genesis  says"  is  but  little 
understood. 


A  Doubterh  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


CHAPTER    VIII 

'"an  agnostic's  apology'' 

THE  natural  attitude  of  a  thinking  mind  to- 
ward the  supernatural  is  that  of  scepticism." 
Scepticism,  not  agnosticism.  The  sceptic  halts 
at  the  cross-roads  to  take  his  bearings;  but  at 
sight  of  a  cross-road  the  agnostic  gives  up  his  jour- 
ney altogether.  True  scepticism  connotes  intellec- 
tual caution,  but  agnosticism  is  intellectual  suicide. 

Not  so,  it  will  be  said,  for  agnosticism  merely  be- 
tokens the  prudence  that  refuses  to  proceed  if  no 
plain  signpost  marks  the  way.  But  in  this  life  it  is 
not  by  plain  signposts  that  we  have  to  direct  our 
steps.  The  meaning  of  a  word  moreover  must  be 
settled  by  use,  and  not  by  etymology;  and  this 
word  was  coined  to  express  something  quite  dififer- 
ent  from  scepticism.  It  is  the  watchword  of  a 
special  school.  And  no  one  will  dispute  that  the 
late  Sir  Leslie  Stephen  may  be  accepted  as  an  au- 
thoritative exponent  of  the  teaching  of  that  school. 
Let  us  then  turn  to  his  treatise  entitled  An  Agnostic's 
Apology. 

A  book  about  dress  would  not  ofifend  us  by  ridi- 
culing and  denouncing  our  conventional  clothing  as 
uncomfortable,  unhealthy,  and  inartistic.  But  if 
the  writer  went  on  to  urge  that  we  should  discard 
all  covering,  and  go  about  in  our  native  nakedness, 
his  lucubrations  would  only  excite  amusement  or 

80 


^^An  Agnostic's  Apology''^ 


disgust.  And  no  one  who  sympathises  with  the 
main  argument  of  the  preceding  chapters  would  find 
much  fault  with  Leslie  Stephen's  treatise  if  it  were 
merely  an  exposure  of  the  superstitions  and  errors 
and  follies  that  have  corrupted  "the  Christian  re- 
ligion" and  discredited  theological  controversy. 
But  when  he  goes  on  to  preach  agnosticism  as  a 
positive  *'faith,"  and  to  formulate  it  as  an  ideal 
''creed/'  he  stands  upon  the  same  level  as  the 
preacher  of  nakedness. 

His  Apology  opens  with  a  definition  of  agnosti- 
cism. "That  there  are  limits  to  the  sphere  of  human 
intelligence,"  no  one  of  course  denies.  But  the 
agnostic  further  asserts  "that  those  limits  are  such 
as  to  exclude  at  least  what  Lewes  called  *metem- 
pirical'  knowledge,"  and  "that  theology  lies  within 
this  forbidden  sphere."  And  the  meaning  of  this  is 
emphasised  by  his  statement  of  the  alternative  posi- 
tion— a  position  which  he  rejects  with  scorn — "that 
our  reason  can  in  some  sense  transcend  the  narrow 
limits  of  experience." 

Now  there  is  a  grotesquely  transparent  fallacy  in 
this ;  and  I  will  illustrate  it  by  a  grotesquely  child- 
ish parable.  As  regards  what  is  happening  next 
door  at  this  moment  my  condition  is  that  of  blank 
agnosticism.  My  reason  can  tell  me  nothing,  and 
happily  the  partition  wall  is  thick  enough  to  prevent 
my  senses  from  enlightening  me.  But  if  my  neigh- 
bour comes  in  to  see  me,  my  ignorance  may  be  at 
once  dispelled,  and  my  reason  "transcends  the  nar- 
row limits  of  my  experience."  And  so  here.  Every- 
body admits  that  in  the  spiritual  sphere  reason  can 

81 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

tell  us  nothing.  Therefore,  our  author  Insists,  we 
are  of  necessity  agnostics.  Not  so,  the  Christian 
replies,  for  God  has  given  us  a  revelation. 

The  agnostic's  rejoinder  will  be  to  reject  my 
implied  definition  of  ''experience,"  and  to  deny  the 
possibility  of  a  revelation.  And  if  he  were  an 
atheist  his  denial  would  be  reasonable  and  consis- 
tent. But  Leslie  Stephen's  repudiation  of  atheism 
undermines  his  whole  position.  To  acknowledge 
the  existence  of  a  God  whose  creatures  we  are,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  deny  on  a  priori  grounds  that 
He  can  reveal  Himself  to  men — this  savours  of 
neither  logic  nor  philosophy. 

If  some  one  came  to  my  house  purporting  to  be 
the  bearer  of  a  letter  from  my  brother,  the  fact  of 
my  having  no  brother  would  be  a  sufficient  reason 
for  refusing  to  receive  him.  But  if  I  had  a  brother 
I  should  be  bound  to  admit  the  visitor  and  read  the 
letter.  My  having  a  brother  would  not  prove  the 
genuineness  of  the  letter,  but  it  would  make  it  in- 
cumbent on  me  to  examine  it.  And  while  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  God  does  not  establish  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  it  creates  an  obligation  to  investigate 
its  truth.  But  the  agnostic  shuts  the  door  against 
all  inquiry.  His  agnosticism  is  positive  and  dog- 
matic. It  is  based  on  a  deliberate  refusal  to  con- 
sider the  matter  at  all. 

This  being  so  his  'Apology  is  merely  a  psean  in 
praise  of  ignorance,  and  a  sustained  appeal  to  preju- 
dice. And  he  makes  free  use  of  the  well-known 
nisi  prills  trick  of  diverting  attention  from  the  real 
issue  by  heaping  ridicule  upon  his  opponents.     His 

82 


^^An  Agnostic's  Apology  " 


dialectical  juggling  about  the  free-will  controversy 
is  a  notable  instance  of  this.  For  as  he  does  not 
pretend  to  deny  that  will  is  free,  his  fireworks, 
effective  though  they  be,  all  end  in  smoke.  A  like 
remark  applies  to  his  discussion  about  virtue  and 
vice.  And  his  reference  to  Cardinal  Newman  is  a 
still  more  flagrant  example  of  his  method.  For  if 
Newman  is  responsible  for  the  statement  that  "the 
Catholic  Church  affords  the  only  refuge  from  the 
alternatives  of  atheism  or  agnosticism,"  it  merely 
exemplifies  the  fact  that  very  great  men  may  say 
very  foolish  things.  In  view  of  the  faith  of  the 
Jew,  and  the  facts  of  Judaism,  such  a  dictum  is 
quite  as  silly  as  it  is  false. 

But  even  if,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  should 
admit  everything  by  which  this  apostle  of  agnosti- 
cism attempts  to  establish  his  opening  theses,  the 
great  problem  which  he  ignores  would  remain,  like 
some  giant  tree  round  which  a  brushwood  fire  has 
spent  itself.  For  the  real  question'  at  issue  is  not 
whether,  as  he  seems  to  think,  theologians  are  fools, 
nor  even  whether  Christianity  is  true,  but  whether 
a  Divine  revelation  is  possible.  And  by  his  refusal 
on  a  priori  grounds  to  accord  to  Christianity  a 
hearing,  he  puts  himself  out  of  court  altogether. 
His  position  is  not  that  of  enlightened  and  honest 
scepticism ;  it  is  the  blind  and  stupid  infidelity  of 
Hume.  It  is  the  expression,  not  of  an  intelligent 
doubt  whether  *'God  hath  spoken  unto  us  by  his 
Son,"  but  an  unintelligent  denial  that  God  could 
speak  to  men  in  any  way.  It  is  a  deliberate  and 
systematic  refusal  to  know  any  thing  beyond  what 

83 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

unaided  reason  and  the  senses  can  discover.  His 
agnosticism  is — to  adopt  his  own  description  of  it 
— a  "creed";  and  were  we  to  emulate  his  method,  it 
might  be  contemptuously  designated  a  creed  of 
mathematics  and  mud. 

As  a  philippic  against  Christianity,  An  Agnostic's 
Apology  is  all  the  more  effective  because  its  pro- 
fanities, like  its  fallacies,  are  skilfully  veiled.  And 
yet  the  tone  of  it  is  deplorable.  In  England  at  least, 
cultured  infidels  are  used  to  speak  of  Christianity 
with  respect,  remembering  that  it  is  the  faith  of 
the  apostles  and  the  martyrs — the  faith,  moreover, 
professed  to-day  by  the  great  majority  of  men  who 
hold  the  highest  rank  in  the  aristocracy  of  learning. 
But  a  very  different  spirit  marks  this  treatise.  In 
the  writer's  estimation  the  great  doctrines  of  that 
faith  are  but  ''old  husks,"  and  the  profession  of 
them  is  only  ''bluster."  And  he  challenges  the 
Christian  to  "point  to  some  [Christian]  truth,  how- 
ever trifling,"  that  "will  stand  the  test  of  discussion 
and  verification." 

That  challenge  the  Christian  can  accept  without 
misgiving  or  reserve.  And  the  doctrine  on  which 
he  will  stake  the  issue  is  not  a  "trifling"  one,  but 
the  great  foundation  truth  of  the  Resurrection. 

In  writing  to  the  Christians  of  Corinth,  the  Apos- 
tle restates  the  Gospel  which  had  won  them  from 
Paganism.  And  the  burden  of  it  is  the  Saviour's 
death  and  resurrection.  "That  Christ  died  for  our 
sins"  is  a  truth  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  ad- 
mits of  no  appeal  to  human  testimony.  But  though 
the  Resurrection  is  equally  the  subject  of  positive 

84 


An  Agnostic's  Apology  " 


revelation,  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  enumerate  wit- 
nesses of  it,  whose  evidence  would  be  accepted  as 
valid  by  any  fair  tribunal  in  the  world.  Once  and 
again  all  the  Apostles  saw  their  Lord  alive  on  earth 
after  His  crucifixion.  And  on  one  occasion  He  was 
seen  by  a  company  of  more  than  five  hundred  dis- 
ciples, most  of  whom  were  still  living  when  the 
Apostle  wrote. 

The  Rationalists  suggest  tjiat  belief  in  the  Resur- 
rection was  the  growth  of  time,  ''when  a  haze  of 
sentiment  and  mysticism  had  gathered  around  the 
traditions  of  Calvary."  But  this  figment  is  explod- 
ed by  the  simple  fact  that  the  interval  was  meas- 
ured by  days  and  not  by  years.  The  disciples, 
moreover,  were  quite  as  sceptical  as  even  these 
"superior  persons"  would  themselves  have  been. 
One  of  the  eleven  Apostles,  indeed,  refused  to  be- 
lieve the  united  testimony  of  his  brethren,  and  for  a 
whole  week  adhered  to  the  theory  that  they  had 
seen  a  ghost.  But  the  Lord's  appearances  were  not 
like  fleeting  visions  of  an  "astral  body"  in  a  dark- 
ened room.  He  met  the  disciples  just  as  He  had 
been  used  to  do  in  the  past.  He  walked  with  them 
on  the  public  ways.  He  sat  down  to  eat  with 
them.  And  more  than  all  this,  He  resumed  His 
ministry  among  them,  renewing  in  detail  His  teach- 
ing about  Holy  Scripture,  and  confirming  their  faith 
by  a  fuller  and  clearer  exegesis  than  they  had  till 
then  been  able  to  receive. 

Such  was  their  explicit  testimony.  And  in  view 
of  it  the  Rationalist  gloss  is  utterly  absurd.  It  is 
sheer  nonsense  to  talk  of  a  haze  of  sentiment,  or  of 

85 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religiuii 

Oriental  superstition,  or  of  overstrained  nerves.  If 
the  Resurrection  was  not  a  reality,  the  Apostles, 
one  and  all,  were  guilty  of  a  base  conspiracy  of 
fraud  and  falsehood.  Credulous  fools  they  certainly 
were  not,  but  profane  impostors  and  champion  liars 
— no  terms  of  reprobation  and  contempt  would  be 
too  strong  to  heap  on  them.  And  this  is  what  un- 
belief implies,  for  in  no  other  way  can  their  testi- 
mony to  the  Resurrection  be  evaded. 

And  in  addition  to  this  direct  evidence,  there  is 
abundant  evidence  of  another  kind.  At  the  betrayal 
all  the  disciples  were  scattered  and  went  into  hid- 
ing. But  at  Pentecost  these  same  men  came  for- 
ward boldly,  and  preached  to  the  Jews  assembled 
in  Jerusalem  for  the  festival.  And  Peter,  who  had 
not  only  forsaken  Him,  but  repeatedly  denied  with 
oaths  that  he  ever  knew  Him,  was  foremost  in  de- 
nouncing the  denial  of  Him  by  the  nation.  Some- 
thing must  have  happened  to  account  for  a  trans- 
formation so  extraordinary.  And  what  was  it? 
Only  one  answer  is  possible — The  Resurrection. 

But  further.  While  the  three  years'  ministry  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  produced  only  about  a  hun- 
dred and  twenty  disciples  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,^ 
this  Pentecostal  testimony  brought  in  three  thou- 
sand converts.^  Nor  was  this  the  mere  flash  of  a 
transient  success.  Soon  afterwards  the  company  of 
the  disciples  was  more  than  trebled.^  For  we  read 
"the  number  of  the  men  came  to  be  about  five 
thousand,"^  and  we  may  assume  that  the  women 
converts  were  at  least  as  numerous.     A  little  later 

Acts  i.   15,  2  Ibid.  ii.  41.  3  Ibid.  iv.  4. 

86 


An  Agnostic's  Apology  '^ 


again,  we  are  told,  they  were  further  joined  by 
"multitudes  both  of  men  and  women. "^  And  later 
still,  the  narrative  records,  *'the  number  of  the  dis- 
ciples multiplied  in  Jerusalem  greatly ;  and  a  great 
company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the  faith. "^ 
All  this,  moreover,  occurred  at  a  time  when  the 
opposition  of  the  Sanhedrim  and  the  priests  was 
fiercer  and  more  organised  even  than  before  the 
crucifixion.  How  then  can  it  be  explained?  Only 
one  answer  is  possible — The  Resurrection. 

But  even  this  is  not  all.  We  have  other  indirect 
evidence,  still  more  striking  and  conclusive.  To 
suppose  that  the  Christianity  of  the  Pentecostal 
Church  was  a  "new  religion"  is  an  ignorant  blunder. 
The  disciples  preached  to  none  but  Jews;  all  the 
converts  without  exception  were  Jews  f  and  by  the 
religious  leaders  of  the  nation  they  were  regarded 
as  an  heretical  Jewish  sect.  When  the  Apostle 
Paul  was  put  on  his  defence  before  Felix,  the  charge 
against  him  was  not  apostasy  but  heresy.  He  was 
a  "leader  of  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes."  And  what 
was  his  answer  to  that  charge?  "According  to  the 
Way  (which  they  call  a  sect)  so  worship  I  the  God 
of  our  fathers,  believing  all  things  which  are  writ- 
ten in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets."*  His  position, 
he  thus  maintained  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  was 
that  of  the  orthodox  Jew. 

Now  there  was  no  ordinance  to  which  the  Jews 
adhered  more  rigidly  than  that  of  the  Sabbath. 
How  was  it  then  that  with  one  consent  they  began 
to  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week?    The  sceptic 

1  Acts  V.    14.  2  Ibid.   vi.    7.  »  Ibid.   vii.    1,   cf.   xi.    19. 

*  Acts    xxiv.    5,    14. 

87 


A  Doubter  ^s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

may  hint  at  parallels  for  their  success  in  proselytis- 
ing, but  here  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be  thus  dismissed. 
Something  of  an  extraordinary  kind  must  have  hap- 
pened to  account  for  it.  What  was  it  then?  Only 
one  answer  is  possible — The  Resurrection. 

I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  methods  by  which  in- 
fidelity has  sought  to  account  for  the  empty  tomb. 
The  lie  of  the  Jewish  priests — that  the  disciples 
stole  the  body — is  too  gross  for  modern  rational- 
ism ;  and  as  an  alternative  explanation,  we  are  told 
that  Christ  had  not  really  died !  And  Dr.  Harnack, 
the  greatest  of  living  rationalists,  disposes  of  the 
matter  by  treating  the  Resurrection  as  a  mere  "be- 
lief." "It  is  not  our  business,"  he  says,  "to  defend 
either  the  view  which  was  taken  of  the  death,  or  the 
idea  that  He  had  risen  again."  And  he  adds: 
''Whatever  may  have  happened  at  the  grave  and  in 
the  matter  of  the  appearances,  one  thing  is  certain : 
this  grave  was  the  birthplace  of  the  indestructible 
belief  that  death  is  vanquished,  that  there  is  a  life 
eternal."  And  again :  "The  conviction  that  ob- 
tained in  the  apostolic  age  that  the  Lord  had  really 
appeared  after  His  death  on  the  cross  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  coefficient."  It  is  not  that  the  fact  of 
the  appearances  was  "a  coefficient,"  but  merely  the 
belief  that  there  were  appearances.  For  his  mean- 
ing is  made  clear  by  his  going  on  to  refer  to  the 
"coefficient"  of  a  mistaken  expectation  of  Christ's 
return.^  There  are  no  facts  of  any  kind  in  this 
scheme,  but  merely  "beliefs"  and  "views"  and 
"ideas."     And  this  being  so  it  involves  the  absolute 

1  What  is  Christianity t     Saunder's  translation,  pp.    155,   162,   173. 


^^An  Agnostic's  Apology  " 


rejection  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  and  therefore  it 
destroys  the  only  ground  on  which  discussion  is 
possible. 

Here  then  is  our  answer  to  the  agnostic's  chal- 
lenge. There  are  circumstances  in  which  it  is  idle 
to  speak  of  spiritual  truth;  but  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  a  public  fact  accredited  by  evidence  which 
will  "stand  the  test  of  discussion  and  verification." 
And  when  the  agnostic  denies  that  Christianity  can 
supply  an  answer  to  as  much  as  one  of  "the  hideous 
doubts  that  oppress  us,"^  the  Christian  points  to 
that  Resurrection  as  dispelling  the  most  grievous 
of  all  the  doubts  that  darken  life  on  earth.  For  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  earnest  and  pledge  of 
the  resurrection  of  His  people.  Such  then  is  the 
Christian's  hope.  "A  sure  and  certain  hope"  he 
rightly  calls  it;  nor  will  he  be  deterred  by  the 
agnostic's  denunciation  of  the  words  as  "a  cutting 
piece  of  satire."- 

Notwithstanding  petulant  disavowals  of  atheism, 
the  real  issue  here  involved  is  not  the  fact  of  a  reve- 
lation, but  the  existence  of  God — a  real  God,  not 
"the  primordial  germ,"  nor  even  the  Director- 
General  of  evolutionary  processes,  but  "the  living 
and  true  God."  From  all  who  acknowledge  such  a 
God  we  are  entitled  to  demand  an  answer  to  the 
Apostle's  challenge  when  he  stood  before  Agrippa : 
"Why  should  it  be  thought  Incredible  with  you  that 
God  should  raise  the  dead?"^ 

1  Apology,  p.  41.  2  Ibid.,  p.  4. 

'  Acts  xxvi.  8.  The  Ttap  I'/UiV  is  emphatic.  It  is  not  clear  whether 
in  this  he  was  addressing  the  Jews,  or  appealing  from  their  unbelief  to 
the  intelligence  of  his   Roman  judges. 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

And  this  suggests  a  closing  word.  Leslie  Stephen 
avers  with  truth  that  the  "enormous  majority  of 
the  race  has  been  plunged  in  superstitions  of  vari- 
ous kinds."  But  the  philosophers  always  omit  to 
tell  us  how  this  imiversal  craving  for  a  religion  can 
be  accounted  for.  And  while  they  are  vainly  seek- 
ing for  the  solution  of  the  enigma  in  the  monkey 
house  of  the  Zoological  Gardens,  sane  and  sensible 
folk  who  make  no  pretensions  to  be  philosophers 
will  continue  to  find  it  in  the  Genesis  story  of  the 
Creation  and  the  Fall.^ 

*  No  one  surely  will  suppose  that  tlie  foregoing  is  a  full  statement 
of  the  evidence  for  the  Resurrection.  To  compress  such  a  statement 
into  such  a  compass  would  be  a  feat  unparalleled  in  Apologetics.  But 
even  this  partial  and  most  inadequate  statement  is  amply  sufificient  as 
an   answer  to    Leslie   Stephen's  challenge. 

What  has  here  been  urged  in  proof  of  the  Resurrection  is  proof  that 
it  was  neither  a  delusion  nor  a  fraud.  For  the  moral  and  spiritual 
elements  involved  are  more  significant  even  than  the  physiological.  I 
might_  further  appeal  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost, 
the  visible  proofs  of  which  are  vouched  for  by  the  men  who  experi- 
enced it.  And  I  might  appeal  to  the  Ascension  and,  in  connection  with 
it,  to  the  Transfiguration,  which  I  may  remark,  the  Apostle  Peter 
records  as  matter  of  evidence  (2  Peter  i.  15-19), 


90 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  IRRATIONALISM  OF  INFIDELITY 

CHRIST  is  still  left"  is  the  solace  Mill  would 
offer  us  as  we  survey  the  wreck  which  ra- 
tionalism makes  of  Faith.  To  that  life  he  appeals 
as  supplying  a  "standard  of  excellence  and  a  model 
for  imitation."  "Who  among  His  disciples,"  he 
demands,  "was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings 
ascribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  character 
revealed  in  the  Gospels?"  Do  not  such  words  as 
these  suggest  that  if  Christianity  would  waive  its 
transcendental  claims  and  make  terms  with  unbe- 
lief, the  record  of  that  life  might  afford  the  basis 
for  a  universal  religion,  a  really  "Catholic"  faith? 
But  who  and  what  was  this  "Jesus"  of  the  Ra- 
tionalist, whose  life  is  to  be  our  model?  The 
answer  to  this  simple  question  will  expose  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  whole  position.  The  Christ  of  the 
Gospels  was  the  Son  of  God,  who  worked  miracles 
without  number,  and  who  claimed  with  the  utmost 
definiteness  and  solemnity  that  His  words  were  in 
the  strictest  sense  a  Divine  revelation.  But  as  re- 
gards His  miracles,  the  Rationalist  tells  us  that  His 
biographers  were  deceived ;  and  as  for  His  teaching 
they  misunderstood  and  perverted  it.  But  if  they 
blundered  thus  in  matters  as  to  which  ordinary 
intelligence  and  care  would  have  made  error  or 
mistake  impossible,  how  can  we  repose  any  trust 

91 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

whatever  in  their  records?      AVhat  materials  have 
we  from  which  to  construct  a  Hfe  of  Christ  at  all? 

And  if  we  decide  that  these  Scriptures  are  not 
authentic,  and  that  Christ  was  merely  human,  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  sinks  to  the  level  of  a  homily 
which  Matthew  framed  on  the  traditions  of  his 
Master's  words.  And  as  for  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
having  regard  to  the  time  when  it  was  written,  and 
to  the  fact  that  the  Synoptics  know  nothing  of  its 
distinctive  teaching,  vv^e  must  acknowledge  that  for 
such  chapters  as  those  which  purport  to  record  ''the 
most  sacred  of  all  sacred  words,"  spoken  on  the 
eve  of  the  Crucifixion,  we  are  mainly  indebted  to 
the  piety  and  genius  of  "the  beloved  disciple."  The 
modern  Jew,  moreover,  cannot  be  far  astray  when 
he  insists  that  Paul  was  the  real  founder  of  the 
Christian  system.  His  was  "the  boldest  enter- 
prise" as  Dr.  Harnack  declares,  for  he  ventured  on 
it  "without  being  able  to  appeal  to  a  single  word  of 
his  Master's."  If  men  would  but  use  their  brains, 
they  would  see  that  once  we  drift  away  from  the 
anchorage  of  the  old  beliefs,  nothing  can  save  us 
from  being  drawn  into  the  rapids  which  end  in 
sheer  agnosticism.  This  does  not  prove  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  but  it  exposes  the  untenableness  of 
the  infidel  position. 

These  infidel  books  habitually  assume  that,  if 
we  refuse  their  nostrums,  superstition  is  our  only 
refuge.  This  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  amazing 
conceit  which  characterises  them.  AVisdom  was 
born  with  the  Agnostics !  They  have  monopolised 
the  meagre  stock  of  intelligence  which  the  evolu- 

92 


The  Irrationalism  of  Infidelity 

tionary  process  has  as  yet  produced  for  the  guid- 
ance of  the  race!  But  there  are  Christians  in  the 
world  who  have  quite  as  much  sense  as  they  have, 
who  detest  superstition  as  much  as  they  do,  and 
who  have  far  more  experience  in  detecting  fallacies 
and  exposing  frauds.  And  if  such  men  are  Chris- 
tians it  is  not  because  they  are  too  stupid  to  be- 
come infidels. 

For  faith  is  not  superstition ;  and  in  presence  of  a 
Divine  revelation  unbelief  betokens  mental  obli- 
quity, if  not  moral  degradation.  Thoughtless  peo- 
ple are  betrayed  into  supposing  that  there  is  some- 
thing very  clever  in  ''not  believing."  But  in  this  life 
the  formula  'T  don't  believe"  more  often  betokens 
dull-wittedness  than  shrewdness.  It  is  the  refrain 
of  the  stupidest  man  upon  the  jury.  A  mere  nega- 
tion of  belief  moreover,  is  seldom  possible;  it  gen- 
erally implies  belief  in  the  alternative  to  what  we 
reject.  The  sceptic  may  hesitate,  in  order  to  exam- 
ine the  credentials  of  a  revelation.  But  no  one  who 
has  a  settled  creed  ever  hesitates  at  all.  And  the 
Atheist  has  such  a  creed;  he  believes  that  there  is 
no  God.  If  we  do  not  believe  a  man  to  be  honest, 
we  usually  believe  him  to  be  a  fraud.  If  we  refuse 
the  testimony  of  witnesses  about  matters  that  are 
too  plain  and  simple  to  allow  of  mere  misapprehen- 
sion or  honest  mistake,  we  must  hold  them  to  be 
impostors  and  rogues.  And  nothing  less  than  this 
is  implied  in  the  position  held  by  men  like  Her- 
bert Spencer  and  Leslie  Stephen. 

But  the  infidel  will  deny  that  he  impugns  the 
integrity  of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists;  he  only 

93 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

questions  their  intelligence.  He  asks  us  to  believe 
that  they  were  so  weak  and  credulous  that  their 
testimony  to  the  miracles,  for  example,  must  be 
rejected.  But  the  miracles  were  not  rare  incidences 
of  dark-room  seances;  they  were  public  events 
which  occurred  day  by  day,  and  usually  in  the 
presence  of  hostile  critics.  No  person  of  ordinary 
intelligence,  therefore,  could  have  been  mistaken  as 
to  the  facts.  What  then  do  we  know  of  the  men  on 
whose  evidence  we  accept  them?  Their  writings 
have  been  translated  into  every  known  language. 
They  hold  a  unique  place  in  the  classic  literature 
of  the  world,  and  the  sublime  morality  and  piety 
which  pervade  them  command  universal  admiration. 
Certain  it  is  therefore  that  if  the  New  Testament  is 
to  be  accounted  for  on  natural  principles,  its  authors 
must  have  been  marvellously  gifted,  both  intellec- 
tually and  morally.  And  yet  these  are  the  men 
whose  testimony  is  to  be  flung  aside  with  contempt 
when  they  give  a  detailed  description  of  events 
which  happened  in  open  day  before  their  eyes.  To 
talk  of  offering  them  a  fool's  pardon  is  absurd.  If 
their  narratives  be  false,  we  must  give  up  all  con- 
fidence in  human  nature,  and  write  them  down  as  an 
abnormally  clever  gang  of  abnormally  profane  im- 
postors and  hypocrites.  But  this  alternative  is 
more  untenable  than  the  other.  It  is  absolutely 
certain  that  the  men  of  the  New  Testament  were 
neither  scoundrels  nor  fools. 

And  no  more  than  this  is  needed  to  undermine 
the  infidel  position.  It  is  not  necessary  to  prove 
that  the  Gospels  are  a  Divine  revelation ;  it  will 

94 


The  I rraiionalism  of  hi  fide  lily 

suffice  to  show  that  they  are  credible  records ;  and 
this  much  is  guaranteed  to  us  by  the  character  of 
the  men  who  wrote  them.  As  a  test  case  let  us 
take  the  miracle  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thouaand, 
recorded  in  all  the  four  Gospels.  I  begin  with  the 
First.  And  I  will  not  speak  of  the  writer  as  "Saint" 
Matthew,  the  Apostle  of  Christ,  but  of  Matthew 
the  ex-tax-collector.  Such  a  man,  we  may  be  sure, 
was  at  least  as  shrewd  and  as  suspicious  as  any  of 
the  infidels  who  with  amazing  conceit  dispose  of  his 
testimony.  He  records  that  on  a  certain  day,  in 
a  "desert  place,"  he  assisted  in  distributing  bread 
and  fish  to  a  vast  multitude  that  gathered  to  hear 
the  Lord's  teaching — there  were  five  thousand  men 
besides  women  and  children ;  that  the  supply  was 
five  loaves  and  two  fishes;  that  "they  did  all  eat 
and  were  filled,  and  they  took  up  of  the  fragments 
that  remained  twelve  baskets  full."  And  this  is 
confirmed  by  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  who 
also  took  part  in  the  distribution  of  the  food,  and 
who  gives  details  which  prove  the  accuracy  with 
which  he  remembered  what  occurred.  If  we  as- 
sume that  the  other  Evangelists  were  not  present, 
their  narratives  become  incidentally  important  as 
showing  that  the  miracle  was  matter  of  common 
knowledge  and  discussion  among  the  disciples. 

Miracles  of  another  kind  the  infidel  gets  rid  of 
to  his  own  satisfaction  by  taking  each  in  detail  and 
appealing  to  what  we  know  of  the  infirmity  of 
human  testimony,  or  the  effects  of  hysteria  and  the 
power  of  mind  or  will  over  the  body.  But  this 
miracle   is   one   of   many   that   cannot   possibly   be 

95 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

accounted  for  on  natural  principles.  And  mistake 
or  illusion  was  no  less  impossible.  That  "the  nar- 
rative arose  out  of  a  parable"  is  the  nonsense  of 
sham  sceptics  and  real  fools.^  For  the  witnesses 
were  admittedly  neither  idiots  nor  rogues,  but  men 
of  the  highest  intelligence  and  probity.  And  this 
being  so  the  facts  are  established,  and  the  only  ques- 
tion open  is,  What  explanation  can  be  given  of 
them?  What  explanation  is  possible  save  that 
Divine  power  was  in  operation?- 

The  infidel  therefore,  so  far  from  being  the 
philosopher  he  pretends  to  be,  is  the  blind  dupe 
of  prejudice.  And  this  is  in  efifect  the  defence 
pleaded  for  Voltaire  by  his  latest  English  apologist. 
To  him  we  are  told  rinfdme,  "if  it  meant  Chris- 
tianity at  all,  meant  that  which  was  taught  in  Rome 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  not  by  the  Sea  of 
Galilee  in  the  first";  "it  meant  the  religion  which 
lit  the  fires  of  Smithfield  and  prompted  the  tortures 
of  the  Inquisition."^  In  a  word,  Voltaire  was  ignor- 
ant of  the  distinction  between  Christianity  and 
what  is  called  "the  Christian  religion."  Not  strange, 
perhaps,  in  the  case  of  an  eighteenth  century 
Frenchman,  but  inexcusable  in  the  case  of  cultured 
Englishmen  of  our  own  times.  For  the  distinction 
is  clear  upon  the  open  page  of  Scripture  and  of  his- 
tory. How  indeed  can  it  be  missed  by  any  one  who 
has  read  the  story  of  the  martyrs?*     For  the  mar- 

1  Encyc.   Biblica,   article  "Gospels,"    §  142. 

2  The  Atheist,  while  admitting  that  the  evidence  is  adequate  and 
trustworthy,  refuses  to  accept  the  miracle,  because  he  holds  on  a  priori 
grounds  that  miracles  are  impossible!  Thus  it  was  that  Hume  got  rid 
of  certain  miracles  the  evidence  for  which  he  admitted  to  be  satisfactory 
and  complete. 

3  Miss  Tallantyre's  Life  of   Voltaire. 

*  What  sort  of  God  have  those  who  believe   that  He  could  ever   for- 

96 


The  Irrattonalism  of  Infidelity 

tyrs  were  the  representatives  and  champions  of 
Christianity:  "the  Christian  reHgion"  it  was  that 
tortured  and  murdered  them.  But  this  is  a  digres- 
sion. 

While  the  aggressive  infidel  has  no  special  claim 
to  consideration,  the  honest-minded  sceptic  is  en- 
titled to  respect  and  sympathy.  And  never  was 
the  path  of  the  truth-seeker  more  beset  with  diffi- 
culties. For  the  development  of  the  rival  aposta- 
sies of  the  last  days,  so  plainly  revealed  in  Scrip- 
ture, goes  on  apace.  On  the  one  side  there  is  a 
national  lapse  toward  the  errors  and  superstitions 
from  which  we  supposed  the  Reformation  had  for 
ever  delivered  us,  and  on  the  other  there  is  an 
abandonment  of  the  great  truths  to  which  the 
Reformation  owed  its  power. 

These  apostasies  moreover  are  well  organized 
under  zealous  and  able  leaders.  And  while  their 
discordant  cries  are  ever  in  our  ears,  "truth  is  fal- 
len in  the  street."  In  the  National  Church  the 
great  Evangelical  party  has  effaced  itself,  and 
fallen  into  line  behind  the  champions  of  the  pagan 
superstitions  of  "the  Christian  religion."^  And 
though  in  the  "Free"  churches,  as  in  the  Estab- 
lishment, there  are  great  numbers  of  true  and  earn- 
est men  who  refuse  to  bow  the  knee  to  any  Baal, 

give  those  hideous  crimes  of  "the  Professing  Church"?  His  grace 
toward  the  individual  sinner  is  infinite,  but  a  corporation  God  never 
forgives.  But  the  fulfilment  of  Rev.  xviii.  4-8  belongs  to  a  time  still 
future.      And   see   p.    99   post. 

1  Bishop  Lightfoot  of  Durham  and  Dr.  Salmon  of  Dublin  would,  I 
suppose,  be  regarded  by  all  Evangelicals  as  among  the  greatest  theo- 
logians of  our  time;  and  their  writings  might  serve  to  check  the  present 
apostasy  of  the  Church  of  England,  Lightfoot's  treatise  on  the  Mm- 
istry,  for  example,  (Epistle  to  the  Philippians),  supplies  a  crushing 
answer  to  the  pricstlv  pretensions  now  in  the  ascendant.  But  to-day 
these  great  men   and  their   writings  are   contemptuously    ignored. 

97 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

the  only  corporate  testimony  ever  heard  is  ''the 
gospel  of  humanity,"  which,  as  Scripture  warns  us, 
will  lead  at  last  to  the  worship  of  the  Antichrist. 
We  are  pestered  by  the  nostrums  of  ''feather-headed 
enthusiasts  who  take  the  first  will-o'-the-wisp  for 
a  safe  guide,  and  patch  up  a  new  religion  out  of 
scraps  and  tatters  of  half-understood  science,"  or  of 
quasi-Christian  ministers  who  are  busy  "framing 
systems  of  morality  apart  from  the  ancient  creeds" 
and  "trying  to  evolve  a  satisfactory  creed  out  of 
theosophical  moonshine."^ 

In  the  past,  superstition  and  rationalism  were  the 
open  enemies  of  the  faith,  but  now  they  are  en- 
trenched within  the  citadel,  and  half  the  churches 
and  chapels  in  the  land  are  places  to  be  shunned. 
Organised  Christianity  is  becoming  an  organised 
apostasy,  and  the  time  seems  drawing  near  when 
practical  expression  must  be  given  to  the  cry,  "To 
your  tents,  O  Israel !"  "The  very  Church  of  God 
which  ought  to  be  the  appeaser  of  God  is  the  pro- 
voker of  God."  These  words  seem  as  apt  to-day  as 
when  they  were  written  fifteen  centuries  ago. 

I  will  here  avail  myself  of  the  language  of  a 
great  commentator  and  divine,  Dean  Alford  of  Can- 
terbury. After  speaking  of  the  apostasy  of  "the 
Jewish  Church"  beginning  with  the  worship  of  "the 
golden  calf,"  he  proceeds  as  follows: — 

"Strikingly  parallel  with  this  runs  the  history  of 
the  Christian  Church.  Not  long  after  the  Apostolic 
times,  the  golden  calves  of  idolatry  were  set  up  by 

^  These  words  were  not  penned  with  reference  to  Sir  Oliver  Lodge's 
Catechism  or  "the  New  Theology";  they  are  taken  from  Sir  Leslie 
Stephen's  Apology   (pp.  339,  354). 

98 


The  Irrationalts7n  of  Infidelity 

the  Church  of  Rome.  What  the  effect  of  the  cap- 
tivity was  to  the  Jews,  that  of  the  Reformation  has 
been  to  Christendom.  The  first  evil  spirit  has  been 
cast  out.  But  by  the  growth  of  hypocrisy,  secular- 
ity,  and  rationalism,  the  house  has  become  empty, 
swept  and  garnished:  swept  and  garnished  by  the 
decencies  of  civilisation  and  the  discoveries  of  secu- 
lar knowledge,  but  empty  of  living  and  earnest 
faith.  And  he  must  read  prophecy  but  ill,  who  does 
not  see  under  all  these  seeming  improvements  the 
preparation  for  the  final  development  of  the  man  of 
sin,  the  great  repossession,  when  idolatry  and  the 
seven  [other  more  wicked  spirits]  shall  bring  the 
outward  frame  of  so-called  Christendom  to  a  fear- 
ful end."i 

1  Greek  Test.  Com.,  Matt.  xii.  43-45.  Alford  is  not  speaking  here 
of  the  Spiritual  Church,  the  Body  of  Christ,  of  which  Christ  Him^ 
self  is  at  once  the  Builder  and  the  Head  (Matt.  xvi.  18;  Eph.  i.  22,  23) 
but  of  the  Professing  Church  on  earth,  the  administration  of  which 
was  entrusted  to  men.  The  one  ends  in  glory,  the  other  in  apostasy 
and  judgment.  The  religion  of  Christendom  confounds  the  one  with 
the  other;  and  it  also  confounds  the  Church  with  "the  kindom  of 
heaven,"  the  "keys"  of  which  were  committed  to  the  Apostle  of  the 
Circumcision. 

The  following  weighty  words  relating  to  the  Church  on  earth  are 
quoted  from  Canon  T.  D.  Bernard's  Progress  of  Doctrine  (The  Bamp- 
ton   Lecture,    1864)  : — 

"How  fair  was  the  morning  of  the  Church!  how  swift  its  progress! 
what  expectations  it  would  have  been  natural  to  form  of  the  future 
history  which  had  begun  so  well!  Doubtless  they  were  formed  in 
manv  a   sanguine   heart;  but  they   were   clouded   soon.  ... 

"While  the  Apostles  wrote,  the  actual  state  and  the  visible  tendencies 
of  things  showed  too  plainly  what  Church  history  would  be;  and  at  the 
same  time,  prophetic  intimations  made   the  prospect  still  more  dark.   .   .  . 

"I  know  not  how  any  man,  in  closing  the  Epistles,  could  expect  to 
find  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Church  essentially  different  from  what 
it  is.  In  those  writings  we  seem,  as  it  were,  not  to  witness  some  passing 
storms  which  clear  the  air,  but  to  feel  the  whole  atmosphere  charged 
with   the  elements   of   future  tempest   and   death.   ... 

"The  fact  which  I  observe  is  not  merely  that  these  indications  of 
the  future  are  in  the  Epistles,  but  that  they  increase  as  we  approach 
the  close,  and  after  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  have  been  fully  wrought 
out,  and  the  fulness  of  personal  salvation  and  the  ideal  character  of 
the  Church  have  been  placed  in  the  clearest  light,  the  shadows  gather 
and  deepen  on  the  external  history.  The  last  words  of  St.  Paul  in 
the  Second  Epistle  to  Tiirothv,  and  those  of  St.  Peter  in  his  Second 
Epistle,  with  the  Eoistles  of  St.  John  and  St.  Jude,  breathe  the  lan- 
guage of  a  time  in  "which  the  tendencies  of  that  history  had  distinctly- 
shown  themselves;  and  in  this  respect  these  writings  form  a  prelude  and 
a  passage  to  the  Apocalypse."         qq 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

CHAPTER   X 
A  sceptic's  plea  for  faith 

ONE  who  is  himself  a  sceptic  both  by  tem- 
permanent  and  by  training  can  appreciate  the 
difficulties  of  the  honest  truth-seeker.  And  to 
such  I  would  offer  the  assurance  of  respectful  sym- 
pathy, and  such  counsel  as  my  own  experience  may 
enable  me  to  give. 

And  first,  I  would  say  with  emphasis,  Ignore  the 
atheistical  section  of  the  scientists.  To  quote  the 
words  of  ''that  prince  of  scientists'*  Lord  Kelvin, 
*'If  you  think  strongly  enough  you  will  be  forced 
by  science  to  the  belief  in  God."^  And  I  would  add, 
quoting  Lord  Kelvin  again,  "Do  not  be  afraid  of 
being  free  thinkers."  For  the  free  thinker  will  re- 
fuse to  be  either  prejudiced  or  discouraged  by  the 
confusion  and  error  which  abound  on  every  side, 
and  which  have  always  marked  the  history  of  the 
professing   Church. 

Fifteen  centuries  ago  the  great  Chrysostom  de- 
plored that  even  in  those  early  days,  every  Christian 
ordinance  was  parodied,  and  every  Christian  truth 
corrupted.  And  if  it  be  demanded,  Where  can  we 
look  for  guidance  amid  the  din  of  the  discordant 
cries  which  beat  upon  our  ears  to-day?  his  words 
may  best  supply  the  answer : — 

"There  can  be  no  proof  of  true  Christianity,"  he 
says,  "nor  any  other  refuge  for  Christians  wishing 

'^Christian  Apologetics,  see  p.  23  ante. 

100 


A  Sceptic's  Plea  for  Faith 


to  know  the  true  faith,  but  the  Divine  Scriptures. 
.  .  .  Therefore  the  Lord,  knowing  that  such  a  con- 
fusion of  things  would  take  place  in  the  last  days, 
commands  on  that  account  that  Christians  should 
betake  themselves  to  nothing  else  but  the  Scrip- 
tures" (Matthew,  Hom.  XLIIL). 

'The  Scriptures!"  some  one  may  exclaim,  "but 
what  about  Moses  and  Jonah  and  Daniel?"  Some 
people  will  believe  nothing,  unless  they  can  believe 
everything.  But  men  who  make  fortunes  in  com- 
merce are  content  with  small  beginnings,  enough 
for  the  necessaries  of  life.  The  "Catholic  Church," 
it  is  true,  would  hand  us  over  to  "the  secular  arm" 
for  failing,  not  only  to  accept  the  whole  Bible,  but 
to  swallow  all  its  own  superstitions.  And  to  fit  us 
for  this  achievement,  Pascal's  advice  would  be  to 
take  to  "religion."  For,  he  said,  "that  will  make 
you  stupid,  and  enable  you  to  believe."^ 

But  a  very  different  spirit  marks  the  Divine  deal- 
ings with  sinful  men.  "He  that  cometh  unto  God 
must  believe  that  He  is,  and  that  He  is  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  Him."  "That  He  is" : 
for  not  a  few  of  the  difficulties  which  men  find  in 
the  Bible  are  practically  atheistical.  And  if  even 
in  the  natural  sphere  it  is  the  "diligent  seeker"  who 
succeeds,  no  one  need  wonder  if  in  the  spiritual 
sphere  it  is  the  "diligent  seeker"  who  secures  the 
treasure. 

Here  then  is  my  advice  to  any  who  are  troubled 
with  sceptical  doubts:  Be  in  earnest;  and  begin  at 
the  beginning.        God  does  not  require  of  us  that 

1  Quoted   from   the   Preface  to   Matthew   Arnold's   God  and  the  Bible. 

101 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

before  we  come  to  Him  we  shall  believe  in  Daniel 
and  Jonah  and  Moses.  But,  to  render  the  words 
with  slavish  literalness,  "It  is  necessary  for  the 
comer  unto  God  to  believe  that  He  exists,  and  that 
He  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  seek  Him  out." 
Men  do  not  find  pearls  upon  the  open  beach,  or 
nuggets  of  gold  upon  the  public  road.  Even  in 
this  world  the  principle  of  "the  narrow  way"  pre- 
vails. And  it  is  only  the  few  who  find  it.  Even  in 
the  mundane  sphere,  success  is  not  for  the  trifler  or 
the  faddist.  But  while  in  this  world  the  diligent 
seeker  is  often  thwarted,  and  sometimes  crushed, 
it  is  never  so  with  God :  He  never  says,  "Seek  ye 
Me  in  vain." 

I  repeat  then,  "Do  not  be  afraid  of  being  free 
thinkers."  In  peace-time  a  war-ship  may  carry  top- 
hamper  without  endangering  her  safety;  but  in 
presence  of  an  enemy  the  first  order  is  to  clear  the 
decks.  And  in  these  days,  when  it  is  necessary  to 
"contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered,"  we 
cannot  be  too  fearless  or  too  ruthless  in  jettisoning 
all  error  and  superstition.  The  schoolboy's  defini- 
tion of  "faith"  is  not  the  right  one :  he  described  it 
as  "believing  what  we  know  to  be  untrue."  The 
God  of  revelation  is  the  God  of  nature ;  and  in  the 
spiritual,  as  in  the  natural  sphere,  there  are  difH- 
culties  which  perplex  and  distress  us.  But  though 
the  Word  of  God,  like  the  works  of  God,  may  be 
full  of  mystery,  it  is  wholly  free  from  falsehood  and 
folly. 

Some  one  may  object  that  the  truth  here  urged  is 
quite  too  elementary  to  be  vital.     But  elementary 

102 


A  SceMic's  Plea  for  Faith 


truths  are  often  the  deepest,  and  always  the  most 
important.  And  it  is  a  significant  fact  that,  in  view 
of  the  completed  revelation  of  Christianity,  the  last 
of  the  doctrinal  books  of  the  New  Testament  closes 
by  reiterating  this  most  elementary  of  all  truths: 
We  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come  and  has 
given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may  know  Him 
that  is  true.  .  .  .  This  is  the  true  God."  Faith  be- 
gins by  giving  up  belief  in  the  Deity  as  a  mere 
abstraction,  like  "the  Monarchy"  or  "the  State," 
and  learning  to  believe  in  "the  living  God"  who  is 
"the  Rewarder  of  them  that  seek  Him."  This  is 
the  alpha  of  the  alphabet  of  faith.  We  reach  the 
omega  when,  giving  up  "the  historic  Jesus,"  we 
come  to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "the  Son 
of  God."  Just  as  "all  the  law  and  the  prophets" 
are  included  in  love  to  God  and  our  neighbour,  so, 
in  the  same  sense,  the  whole  revelation  of  Chris- 
tianity is  an  unfolding  of  this  truth.  Not,  as  the 
rationalist  has  it,  "that  a  man  of  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  once  stood  in  our  midst,"  but  that  "the  Son 
of  God  is  come,"  He  who  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God,  and  who  was  God,  and  by  whom  all  things 
were  made" — that  He  once  stood  in  our  midst. 
"God  hath  spoken  to  us  in  His  Son." 

"But,"  It  may  be  said,  "there  Is  a  fallacy  here. 
Belief  in  God  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  natural 
religion,  but  belief  In  Christ  depends  upon  revela- 
tion; and  this  raises  the  question  of  the  inspiration 
of  Scripture."  I  challenge  that  statement.  The 
question  of  inspiration  Is  of  vital  importance  in  Its 
own  place,  but  this  is  not  Its  place.     Here  and  now 

103 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

we  are  concerned  with  facts — the  public  facts  of 
the  ministry  of  Christ,  including  His  miracles  and 
His  resurrection  from  the  dead.  For  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  records  is  admitted,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  their  authenticity  is  guaranteed  by  the 
character  of  the  men  who  wrote  them.  And  I 
need  not  repeat  the  argument  that  the  denial  of 
their  inspiration  compels  us  to  form  a  still  higher 
estimate  of  their  personal  competence.^ 

In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  their  testimony 
the  infidel  points  to  the  lapse  of  time  since  these 
events  occurred,  and  he  tries  to  raise  a  cloud  of 
prejudice  by  ringing  the  changes  on  the  apostasy 
of  the  Christian  Church.  But  this  is  only  nisi  prius 
claptrap.  The  significance  of  facts  such  as  those 
we  have  here  in  view  cannot  be  impaired  either  by 
the  lapse  of  centuries  or  by  any  amount  of  human 
failure  and  folly.  I  put  this  question  therefore  to 
all  fair  and  earnest  thinkers.  Suppose  the  ministry 
of  Christ  belonged  to  the  nineteenth  century, 
instead  of  the  first,  what  effect  would  it  have  upon 
you?  How  would  you  account  for  it?  Is  not  the 
only  reasonable  explanation  of  it  this,  *'that  the 
Son  of  God  is  come"? 

The  New  Testament  records  but  one  apostolic 
sermon  addressed  to  a  heathen  audience.  Jews 
could  be  referred  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  proof 
''that  Jesus  was  the  Christ."  But  when  preaching 
to  the  Areophagites  of  Athens  the  Apostle  appealed 
to  their  own  religion,  the  writings  of  their  poets, 
and  the  phenomena  of  nature,  to  prove  the  existence 
of  an  intelligent,  personal,  and  beneficent  God ;  and 

^  See  p.   94  ante. 

104 


A  Sceptic's  Plea  for  Faith 


he  pointed  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ  in  proof 
that  God  had  declared  Himself  to  men.  The  times 
of  ignorance  which  God  could  overlook  were  past. 
''He  now  commandeth  all  men  everywhere  to 
repent";  for  agnosticism  has  become  a  sin  that 
shuts  men  up  to  judgment,  ^'whereof  He  hath 
given  assurance  unto  all  men  in  that  He  hath  raised 
Him  from  the  dead."  ^ 

There  is  not  a  word  here  about  the  inspiration 
either  of  writings  or  of  men.  That  is  a  question 
for  "the  household  of  faith,"  the  home  circle  of  the 
family  of  God.  But  here  we  have  to  do  with  what 
concerns  ''all  men  everywhere."  And,  I  repeat,  the 
fact  that  "  the  Son  of  God  is  come,"  and  the  solemn 
warning  that  judgment  is  assuredly  to  follow,  are 
wholly  unaffected  by  accidents  of  time  or  place. 
I  am  not  fencing  with  professional  sceptics,  but 
appealing  to  real  truth-seekers,  and  upon  such  I 
again  press  the  question,  What  bearing  has  this 
upon  you? 

No  one  who  will  read  these  pages  is  more  scep- 
tical than  the  writer  of  them,  none  who  feels  a 
stronger  antipathy  to  superstition  and  error  and 
nonsense.  But  the  falsehoods  and  follies  of  "the 
Christian  religion"  in  its  many  phases,  whether 
venerable  or  newfangled,  must  not  be  allowed  to 
obscure  the  issue  here  involved.  "The  Son  of  God 
is  come."  And  in  view  of  that  supreme  fact  God 
commands  repentance,  "for  He  has  appointed  a  day 
in  the  which  He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness by  that  man  whom  He  has  ordained." 

And    in    that    day    no    one    will    be    condemned 

lActs   xvii.    22-31. 

105 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

because  he  did  not  belong  to  this  Church  or  that, 
or  because  he  failed  to  accept  the  inspiration  of  one 
book  or  another.  The  judgment  will  turn  on  this, 
''that  God  sent  His  Son  into  the  world."  Here  are 
His  own  words — the  words  of  Him  who  is  Himself 
to  be  the  Judge;  ''This  is  the  condemnation,  that 
light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  dark- 
ness rather  than  light  because  their  deeds  were  evil." 

A  blind  and  unreasoning  infidelity  denies  the 
resurrection.  But  to  aver  that  God  could  not 
raise  Christ  from  the  dead  is  practical  atheism : 
to  aver  that  He  would  not  raise  Him  from  the  dead 
is  mere  nonsense;  and  to  assert  that  He  did  not 
raise  Him  from  the  dead  is  to  deny  a  public  fact, 
*'the  certainty  of  which  can  be  invalidated  only  by 
destroying  the  foundations  of  all  human  testimony." 

And  by  the  resurrection  He  was  "declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God."  ^  How  else  can  the  resurrection 
be  explained?  What  other  significance  can  possi- 
bly be  assigned  to  it?  That  Christ  Himself  claimed 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  is  not  a  matter  of  inspiration 
but  of  evidence.  His  crucifixion  by  the  Jews  estab- 
lishes it.  The  Jews  were  not  savages  who  murdered 
their  Rabbis.  They  honoured  them.  But,  we  read, 
when  He  said,  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,  then 
took  they  up  stones  to  cast  at  Him."  And  when 
He  said,  "I  and  My  Father  are  one,  then  the  Jews 
took  up  stones  again  to  stone  Him."  And  in  an- 
swer to  His  remonstrance  they  exclaimed  "Thou 
being  a  man  makest  thyself  God."-  If  He  was  not 
Divine   He   was   a   blasphemer,  and  by   their  law 

1  Rom.    i.    4. 

2  John  viii.    58,    59;   x.   30-33. 

106 


A  Sceptic's  Plea  for  Faith 


deserved  to  die.     But  the  resurrection  proved  Him 
to  be  Divine. 

And  can  the  appalHng  fact  that  the  Son  of  God 
has  thus  died  at  the  hands  of  men  be  dismissed 
as  a  mere  incident  in  history,  or  as  a  commonplace 
of  religious  controversy!  *'As  He  had  laid  aside 
His  glory,  He  now  restrained  His  power,  and 
yielded  Himself  to  their  guilty  will.  In  return  for 
pity  He  earned  but  scorn.  Sowing  kindnesses  and 
benefits  with  a  lavish  hand,  He  reaped  but  cruelty 
and  outrage.  Manifesting  grace,  He  was  given  up 
to  impious  law  without  show  of  mercy  or  pretence 
of  justice.  Unfolding  the  boundless  love  of  the 
heart  of  God,  He  gained  no  response  but  bitterest 
hate  from  the  hearts  of  men."  The  fate  of  the 
heathen  who  have  never  heard  of  Him  rests  with 
God  ;  but  to  us  the  Cross  must  of  necessity  bring 
either  blessing  or  judgment.  In  presence  of  it  we 
must  take  sides.  And  he  who  takes  sides  with  God 
is  safe. 

And  now,  having  reached  this  stage,  can  we  not 
advance  another  step?  ''Scientific  thought  compels 
belief  in  God."  And  here  "Agnosticism  assumes 
a  double  incompetence,  the  Incompetence  not  only 
of  man  to  know  God,  but  of  God  to  make  Himself 
known.  But  the  denial  of  competence  is  the  nega- 
tion of  Deity.  For  the  God  who  could  not  speak 
would  not  be  rational,  and  the  God  who  would  not 
speak  would  not  be  moral.  The  idea  of  a  written 
revelation,  therefore,  may  be  said  to  be  logically 
involved  in  the  notion  of  a  living  God."  And  with 
overwhelming  force  this  applies  to  the  matter  here 

107 


A  Doubter'* s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

at  issue.  If  ''the  Son  of  God  is  come,"  is  it  credible, 
it  is  possible,  that  God  has  not  provided  for  us  an 
authentic  record  of  His  mission  and  ministry? 
Even  the  credulity  of  unbelief  might  well  give  way 
under  the  strain  of  such  a  supposition.  Whether 
you  describe  it  as  "inspiration"  or  "providence" — 
call  it  by  what  term  you  please — must  not  the  exis- 
tence of  such  a  record  be  assumed?  If  men  are 
doubters  here,  it  must  be  because  they  doubt  either 
that  "God  is,"  or  that  "the  Son  of  God  is  come." 
But  "we  knozv  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come."  With 
certainty,  therefore,  we  accept  the  record.  And 
here  are  His  words: — 

"As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish  but 
have  eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that 
He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life." 

And  if  this  be  Divine  truth,  who  will  dare  to 
cavil  at  the  words  which  follow:  "He  that  believeth 
on  Him  is  not  condemned :  but  he  that  believeth 
not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath  not 
believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God."  ^ 

It  is  not  death  that  decides  our  destiny,  but  our 
acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 
For  the  consequences  of  receiving  or  rejecting  Him 
are  immediate  and  eternal. 

ijohn  iii.   14-18. 


108 


CHAPTER  XI 

HOW   TO   READ   THE   BIBLE 

THE  preceding  chapter  opened  by  quoting 
words  spoken  by  the  most  eminent  of  living 
scientists :  this  chapter  shall  be  prefaced  by  quoting 
a  man  of  the  highest  eminence  in  another  sphere— 
the  greatest  philologist  of  our  time.  The  following 
is  an  extract  from  a  letter  written  in  one  of  the 
later  years  of  his  life  by  Prof.  Max  Miiller  of 
Oxford  :— 

"How  shall  I  describe  to  you  what  I  found  in  the 
New  Testament !  I  had  not  read  it  for  many  years 
and  was  prejudiced  against  it.  The  light  which 
struck  Paul  with  blindness  on  his  way  to  Damascus 
was  not  more  strange  than  that  which  fell  on  me 
when  I  suddenly  discovered  the  fulfilment  of  all 
hopes.  ...  If  this  is  not  Divine  I  under- 
stand nothing  at  all.  In  all  my  studies  of  the 
ancient  times  I  have  always  felt  the  want  of  some- 
thing, and  it  was  not  until  I  knew  our  Lord  that 
all  was  clear  to  me."  ^ 

Testimonies  of  this  kind— and  they  might  be 
multiplied  indefinitely — have  no  efifect  upon  the 
aggressive  infidel.  But  they  cannot  fail  to  influence 
honest  and  earnest  men  who  are  willing  to  deal 
fairly  with  the  Scriptures. 

And  here  another  testimony  of  a  wholly  diflferent 
kind  will  be  opportune.     Among  the  many  learned 

*  This  letter  was  publisked  in   the  Standard  newspaper  of  May   20, 


1905 

109 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

and  brilliant  assailants  of  the  Bible  whom  Germany 
has  produced,  no  name  ranks  higher  than  that  of 
Ferdinand  Christian  Baur,  the  leader  of  "the 
Tubingen  School"  of  critics,  by  whom  the  New 
Testament  was  rejected  "as  a  tissue  of  deceptions 
and  forgeries."  Among  living  exponents  of  the 
so-called  "Higher  Criticism"  Germany  possesses 
no  greater  authority  than  the  Principal  of  Berlin 
University.  But  the  result  of  Baur's  labours  Dr. 
Harnack  dismisses  as  "an  episode"  which  had  bet- 
ter be  forgotten ;  and  as  the  outcome  of  his  own 
investigations,  he  declares,  "The  oldest  literature 
of  the  Church,  in  all  main  points  and  in  most 
details,  from  the  point  of  view  of  literary  criticism, 
is  genuine  and  trustworthy."  ^ 

The  importance  of  this  testimony  can  scarcely 
be  exaggerated.  For  Dr.  Harnack  is  as  uncom- 
promising a  rationalist  as  was  Baur  himself.  And 
when  this  great  scholar  and  critic,  reviewing  Baur's 
conclusions,  vouches  for  the  genuineness  and  trust- 
worthiness of  the  New  Testament  writings,  the 
most  sceptical  of  men  may  rest  assured  that  we 
possess  reliable  records  of  the  ministry  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles. 

And  now  may  we  not  appeal  to  any  who  are 
really  honest  doubters  to  face  this  matter  with  an 
open  mind?  To  such  we  would  say,  begin  your 
Bible  study,  not  with  Genesis  or  Jonah,  but  with 

^  The  Chronology  of  the  Oldest  Christian  Literature.  He  adds:  "In 
the  whole  New  Testament  there  is  in  all  probability  only  a  single  writing 
that  can  be  looked  upon  as  pseudonymous  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  word— i.e.  2  Peter."  I  infer,  however,  from  his  book,  What  is 
Christianity?  that  the  exigencies  of  his  rationalistic  scheme,  as  un- 
folded in  that  work,  compelled  him  to  place  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the 
same  category. 

110 


How  to  Read  the  Bible 


the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament.  Max 
Miiller's  study  of  them,  in  spite  of  his  avowed 
prejudice,  convinced  him  that  Christianity  was 
Divine,  and  you  may  expect  to  reach  the  same 
conclusion. 

And  when  you  come  upon  difficulties  and  seem- 
ing contradictions,  pass  them  by.  They  will 
possibly  appear  to  you  in  a  different  light  when 
you  come  back  to  them  afterwards  with  a  more 
educated  mind.  It  is  always  so  in  the  study  of 
Nature,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  it  should  be  so 
in  the  sphere  of  revelation.  And  as  you  read  the 
Gospel  narratives  keep  in  view  the  purpose  with 
which  "these  things  were  written,"  namely  "that 
ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  and  that  believing,  ye  might  have  life 
through  His  name."  ^  They  deal,  therefore,  with 
issues  the  most  important  and  solemn  that  can 
possibly  occupy  the  thoughts  of  men.  For  they 
reveal  the  secret  of  peace,  and  even  of  joy,  in  a 
world  that  is  full  of  doubt  and  sadness  and  sorrow 
and  pain  and  sin  and  death.  That  evil  is  a  mere 
fantasy,  and  sin  but  a  defect  of  character  or  pur- 
pose— this  is  the  dream  of  fools.  These  things  are 
terribly  real.  And  if  it  be  not  true  that  "the  Son 
of  God  is  come" — if  Christianity  be  a  delusion  or 
a  fraud — we  must  resign  ourselves  to  the  "deepen- 
ing gloom"  of  life  in  this  world  unrelieved  by  any 
hope  beyond  it. 

And  what  is  the  alternative?  What  if  Christianity 
be  true?    The  answer  shall  be  given  by  one  whose 


1  John  XX.  31. 

Ill 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

testimony  will  command  universal  respect  and 
confidence,  the  late  Earl  Cairns,  three  times  Lord 
High  Chancellor  of  England,  and  the  greatest 
Chancellor  perhaps  of  modern  times.  The  follow- 
ing words  were  spoken  by  him  to  a  company  of 
working  men,  that  included  agnostics  and  infidels 
who  deprecated  any  reference  to  ''religion"  on  the 
occasion : — 

''As  I  am  a  stranger  among  you  I  do  not  know 
that  I  have  any  right  to  intrude  my  opinions.  All 
I  can  do  is  to  tell  you  how  this  question  afifects 
me  personally.  If  I  could  take  you  to  my  home 
you  would  think  it  a  luxurious  one,  and  the  food 
on  my  table  is  abundant.  You  would  say  that  with 
all  this  I  ought  to  be  a  happy  man.  I  am  indeed 
a  happy  man,  but  I  do  not  think  my  furniture  and 
food  have  much  to  do  with  it.  Every  day  I  rise 
with  a  sweet  consciousness  that  God  loves  me  and 
cares  for  me.  He  has  pardoned  all  my  sins  for 
Christ's  sake,  and  I  look  forward  to  the  future  with 
no  dread.  And  His  Spirit  reveals  to  me  that  all 
this  peace  is  only  the  beginning  of  joy  which  is  to 
last  throughout  eternity.  Suppose  it  were  possible 
for  someone  to  convince  me  that  this  happiness 
was  altogether  a  delusion  on  my  part,  my  home 
would  give  me  little  repose,  and  food  would  often 
remain  upon  the  table  untasted.  I  should  wake  in 
the  morning  with  the  feeling  that  it  was  scarcely 
worth  while  to  get  up,  so  little  would  there  be  to 
live  for;  all  would  be  so  dark  to  me." 

"What  is  it  about?"  is  a  legitimate  question  to 
112 


How  to  Read  the  Bible 


ask  when  a  book  is  placed  in  our  hands.  And  an 
intelligent  answer  to  that  question,  as  we  open  the 
Bible,  will  save  us  from  many  a  prejudice  and  many 
an  error.  It  is  strange  that  any  one  can  be  deceived 
by  the  figment  that  the  Old  Testament  is  the  his- 
tory of  the  human  race.  Except  for  a  brief  preface 
of  eleven  chapters,  its  burden  is  unmistakably  the 
history  of  that  people  *'of  whom,  as  concerning  the 
flesh,  Christ  came."  It  has,  indeed,  an  esoteric 
meaning,  for  its  hidden  purpose  is  to  foretell,  and 
lead  up  to,  that  supreme  event.  But  this  shall  be 
dealt  with  in  the  sequel. 

This  clew  to  the  true  character  and  vital  unity 
of  the  Bible  will  guard  us  against  another  popular 
error.  '*To  us  there  is  but  one  God,"  the  Apostle 
writes ;  but  most  people  have  two — the  God  of 
Nature  and  providence,  and  the  God  of  revelation. 
And  a  great  many  Christians  have  three;  for  with 
them  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the  God 
of  the  New.  This  error  is  largely  due  to  a  false 
conception  of  the  place  held  by  the  Jew  in  the 
previous  dispensation ;  and  as  the  result  of  it  the 
semi-infidel  "Christian  literature"  of  the  day  uses 
language  about  Israel's  Jehovah  Avhich  I  will  not 
pollute  the  page  by  reproducing  here.  It  represents 
Him  as  callously  devoting  the  mass  of  men  to 
destruction,  and  having  no  care  or  thought  save 
for  one  specially  favoured  race.  This  betrays 
extraordinary  ignorance  of  Scripture. 

The  Bible  begins  by  recording  the  Creation  and 
the  Fall,  the  apostasy  of  the  sinful  race,  the  world 
judgment  of  the  Flood,  and  the  post-diluvial  apos- 

113 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  mid  Religion 

tasy  of  Babylon.  And  then  follows  the  call  of 
Abraham.  The  religion  of  Babylon  was  a  syste- 
matised  perversion  of  Divine  truth.  Its  ''Bible'* 
travestied  both  the  primeval  revelation  of  which 
the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis  contain  the  authen- 
tic record  and  the  sacrificial  cult  by  which  God 
sought  to  teach  mankind  that  death  was  the  penalty 
of  sin.  The  earlier  apostasy  had  been  wiped  out  by 
the  Flood,  but  God  had  in  mercy  promised  that 
that  judgment  would  never  be  repeated.^  And  the 
truth  and  value  of  that  promise  were  displayed 
in  the  call  of  Abraha.m  and  the  segregation  of  the 
covenant  people.  The  Divine  purpose  was  thus  to 
guard  the  truth  from  corruption,  and  to  establish 
a  centre  from  which  it  might  enlighten  the  world. 

Among  the  many  advantages  enjoyed  by  the 
favoured  people,  the  greatest  was  ''that  unto  them 
were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."-  When  the 
owner  of  some  famous  vineyard  establishes  an 
agency  in  London  or  New  York,  his  object  in  doing 
so  is  not  to  hinder  the  public  from  procuring  his 
wines,  but  to  ensure  that  what  is  sold  as  his  shall 
be  genuine  and  pure.  And  agency,  as  distinguished 
from  monopoly,  illustrates  the  position  which  in  the 
old  dispensation  was  Divinely  accorded  to  the  Jew. 

In  days  before  books  were  within  reach  of  all, 
the  knowledge  of  literature  and  the  arts  was  kept 
alive  in  certain  great  seats  of  learning,  and  in  like 
manner  it  was  intended  that  the  light  of  Divine 
truth  should  be  kept  burning  in  Jerusalem,  and 
that  the  Temple  of  Zion  should  be  "a  house  of 

1  Gen.  viii.   21,   22 
a  Rom.   iii.    1,   2. 

114 


How  to  Read  the  Bible 


prayer  for  all  nations."^  But  just  as  the  Christian 
Church  of  this  dispensation  has  failed,  so  the  "Jew- 
ish Church"  was  false  to  its  trust.  And  as  the 
result  the  God  of  the  New  Testament  is  blasphemed 
by  infidels,  and  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  blasphemed  by  Christian  Professors  of  theology. 

Errors  of  another  kind  prevail,  which  we  need 
to  guard  against.  Here  is  a  typical  one.  Israel 
was  a  theocracy,  and  therefore  the  Divine  code 
included,  not  merely  "the  moral  law,"  but  enact- 
ments of  various  kinds  relating  to  social  and 
commercial  life,  sanitation,  and  crime.  If  all 
Scripture  be  "God-breathed,"  we  may  be  assured 
that  all  is  "profitable";-  but  yet  we  must  use  it 
with  mtelligent  discrimination.  "Every  creature 
of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  to  be  rejected."  But 
we  do  not  on  that  account  feed  our  babies  on  beef 
and  potatoes.  Some  people  do  so,  indeed;  and  they 
are  not  more  unintelligent  than  the  Christians  who 
ply  their  children  with  these  ordinances  of  the 
Mosaic  code,  when  they  ought  to  be  giving  them 
"the  sincere  milk  of  the  Word." 

A  somewhat  similar  abuse  of  Scripture  is 
denounced  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  People 
imagine   that   love   is   the   abrogation   of   law,   but 

1  Mark  xi.  17  (R.V.);  Isa.  Ivi.  7.  This  appears  in  the  plainest  way 
in  the  great  dedication  service  of  the  Temple  (see  2  Chron.  vi.-  32,  33, 
about  "the  stranger  who  is  not  of  Thy  people  Israel,  but  is  come 
from  a  far  country  ...  if  they  come  and  pray  in  this  house, 
then  hear  Thou  .  .  .  that  all  people  of  the  earth  may  know  Thy 
name  and  fear  Thee").  In  this  connection  reference  may  be  made 
also  to  the  precepts  of  the  law  for  hospitality  and  kindness  in  the 
treatment  of  foreigners.  They  have  no  parallel  in  the  code  of  any 
Christian   country. 

2  In  writing  on  crime  I  have  given  grounds  for  believing  that  if  the 
two  main  features  of  the  Mosaic  code  were  accepted  in  our  criminal 
law  the  reform  would  lead  to  a  substantial  and  immediate  decrease  of 
crime. 


U5 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

Scripture  teaches  that  it  is  the  ''fulfilling"  of  it. 
Therefore  it  was  that  to  "the  Beatitudes"  the  Lord 
immediately  added  words  to  guard  against  the 
error,  which  half  of  Christendom  has  adopted,  of 
supposing  that  His  purpose  was  to  set  aside,  or  in 
some  way  to  disparage,  the  law.  But  the  law  had 
two  aspects.  Christianity  itself  knows  no  higher 
standard  than  love  to  God  and  one's  neighbour; 
and  this  was  expressly  declared  to  be  the  esoteric 
teaching  of  the  Mosaic  law.  In  this  aspect  of  it 
the  law  proclaimed  what  a  man  ought  .to  he;  in 
its  lower  aspect  it  prohibited  what  men  ought  not  to 
do.  But  in  this  its  lower  form  "the  law  was  not 
made  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and 
disobedient."  And  yet  "the  righteousness  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees"  consisted  in  non-violation 
of  the  "Thou  shalt  not's"  of  the  penal  code  of  the 
theocracy.  But  what  was  not  the  righteousness 
of  those  who  desired  to  be  sons  of  the  Father  in 
heaven,  nor  would  it  give  entrance  into  the  King- 
dom. Theirs  was  a  far  different  standard  of  life 
than  mere  discharge  of  their  responsibilities  as  citi- 
zens of  the  Commonwealth.^ 

Error  is  altogether  human  and  may  be  detected 
by  the  use  of  our  natural  faculties.  Hence  our 
Lord's  indignant  rebuke  addressed  to  the  Pharisees, 

^  Comnare  the  20th  with  the  45th  verse  of  Matt.  v.  Immediately 
preceding  verse  20  is  the  express  statement  that  "one  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law."  Immediately  following  it  are  the 
instances  above  referred  to,  beginning  "Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said 
to  [not  by}  them  of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  etc.  As  a  citizen 
a  Jew  committed  no  crime  in  being  angry  with  his  brother;  but  as  a 
child  of  his  I-'ather  in  heaven  (verse  45)  he  was  guilty  of  sin.  The 
formula  "Ye  have  heard,"  etc.,  repeated  in  verses  21,  27,  33,  38,  43, 
clcarlv  indicates  that  the  Lord  was  referring  to  the  teaching  of  their 
instructors,  and  probably  to  some  "catechism"  in  common  use.  For  it 
was  not  in  this  fashion  that  He  was  used  to  quote  Holy  Scripture, 

116 


How  to  Read  the  Bible 


*'How  is  it  that  even  of  yourselves  ye  do  not  judge 
what  is  right?"  Lord  Kelvin's  dictum  therefore 
is  apt  and  useful :  "Do  not  be  afraid  of  being  free 
thinkers."  But  a  caution  is  needed  here.  While 
common  sense  may  save  us  from  much  of  the  error 
and  nonsense  by  which  the  language  of  the  Bible 
is  perverted  or  obscured,  our  natural  faculties  will 
not  avail  to  reveal  to  us  its  deeper  teaching.  For 
Divine  truth  is  spiritually  discerned,  and  therefore 
spiritual  intelligence  is  needed  for  the  apprehension 
of  it.  And  there  are  difficulties  in  the  Bible  which 
even  spiritual  intelligence  will  fail  to  solve, 
difficulties  which  seem  nearly  as  insoluble  and  dis- 
tressing as  are  God's  providential  dealings  with  His 
people  in  their  life  on  earth.^ 

But  such  difficulties  cannot  shake  the  faith  of 
those  who  have  learned  to  trace  the  golden  threads 
of  type  and  promise  and  prophecy,  which  are 
spread  through  all  the  sacred  writings,  giving  proof 
of  their  unity  and  testifying  to  their  Divine  author- 
ship. **These  are  they  which  testify  of  Me"  was 
the  Lord's  description  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
And  in  His  post-resurrection  ministry,  we  are  told, 
"beginning  at  Moses,  and  all  the  prophets,  He 
expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the 
things  concerning  Himself."  On  this  Dean  Alford 
writes:  "I  take  the  [words]  to  mean  something 
very  different  from  mere  prophetical  passages. 
The  zvhole  Scriptures  are  a  testimony  to  Him;  the 
whole  history  of  the  chosen  people,  with  its  types, 

*  It  IS  a  most  significant  fact  that  the  greatest  difficulties  in  Scrip- 
ture are  of  this  character.  If  the  wavs  of  God  in  providence  so  often 
try  our  faith,  it  is  not  strange  that  this  method  should  be  true  also  of 
the  words  of  God  in  revelation. 

117 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

and  its  law,  and  its  prophecies,  is  a  showing  forth 
of  Him:  and  it  was  here  the  zvlwle  that  He  laid 
before  them."  ^ 

And  these  golden  threads  unite  the  later  with 
the  earlier  Scriptures.  Indeed,  the  Gospels  belong 
as  much  to  the  Old  Testament  as  to  the  New.  For 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  ''the  son  of  David,  the 
son  of  Abraham."  And  the  ministry  there  recorded 
is  that  of  the  Jews*  Messiah.  It  is  not  till  we  come 
to  the  Epistles  that  we  are  confronted  by  the  new 
and  startling  fact  that  Divine  Scriptures  are 
addressed  to  Gentiles.  And  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles explains  the  change.  Because  they  rejected 
the  Messiah,  the  covenant  people  are  themselves 
rejected.  Their  position  as  the  Divine  agents  upon 
earth  is  determined,  and  the  Gospel  now  goes  out 
unfettered  to  the  world. 

The  unbelief  of  infidels  is  seldom  as  unintelligent 
as  that  of  professing  Christians.  ''Back  to  Christ" 
is  the  shibboleth  of  a  school  that  seeks  to  set  one 
part  of  Scripture  against  another,  and  to  disparage 
the  ministry  of  Paul.  But  unless  Christ  was  to 
come  back  in  person,  the  new  and  special  revelation 
consequent  upon  the  great  dispensational  change 
involved  in  setting  aside  the  earthly  people  must 
needs  have  been  made  by  the  ministry  of  human 
lips  and  pen ;  and  Divine  sovereignty  made  choice 
of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  And  to  disparage 
the  Apostle  Paul,  or  the  revelation  entrusted  to 
him,  is  not  to  get  back  to  Christ,  but  to  put  our- 

^  This  is  too  commonly  ignored;  and  as  the  result  very  many  present- 
day  expositors  betray  ignorance  of  the  language  in  which  the  New 
Testament  is  written — not  Greek  (for  that  is  merely  the  outward  shell) 
but  the  types  and  prophecies  of  the  earlier  Scriptures. 

118 


How  to  Read  the  Bible 


selves   back  into   the  position  which   the   Gentiles 
occupied  in  the  days  of  His  earthly  ministry. 

The  intelligent  student  of  Scripture  will  find 
ever  increasing  proofs  of  what  Pusey  aptly  calls 
its  "hidden  harmony."  "Not  harsh  and  crabbed, 
as  dull  fools  suppose"  is  the  poet's  vindication  of 
"divine  philosophy";  and  with  still  fuller  meaning 
and  deeper  truth  may  these  words  be  used  of  the 
Divine  Book. 


119 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM 

"DlBLE  students  nowadays  seem  to  be  haunted 
^^  by  the  grim  spectre  of  the  /'Higher  Criti- 
cism." But  if  instead  of  running  away  from  ghosts 
we  face  them  boldly,  our  fears  generally  give  place 
to  feelings  of  contempt  or  indignation.  And  this 
is  the  experience  of  many  who  have  fearlessly 
examined  what  are  called  ''the  assured  results  of 
modern  criticism."  The  fact  that  these  attacks 
upon  the  Bible  originated  with  German  rationalism 
formerly  barred  their  acceptance  by  Christians  of 
the  English-speaking  world.  But  in  our  day  they 
have  been  accredited  by  distinguished  scholars  on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  whose  reputation  for 
piety  and  reverence  for  things  Divine  is  deemed 
a  guarantee  that  they  are  legitimate  and  harmless 
I  am  not  referring  to  that  admirable  and  useful 
system  of  Bible  study  to  which  the  title  of  Higher 
Criticism  properly  belongs/  but  to  "the  Higher 
Criticism"  in  inverted  commas — a  German  rational- 
istic crusade  against  the  Scriptures.  The  New 
Testament  was  at  one  time  its  chief  objective;  and 
we  have  seen  with  what  results.-  The  much 
vaunted  conclusions  of  the  Tubingen  School  of 
critics  are  now  relegated  to  the  same  limbo  as  the 
Bathybius  of   the   scientists.^      And   it   may   be   pre- 

1  It    has    for    its    aim    to    settle    the    human    authorship    of   the    sacred 
books,   and  the  circumstances   in   which   they   were   written. 

2  See  p.  110  ante.  s  See  p.  45  ante. 

120 


The  Higher  Criticism 


dieted  with  confidence  that  a  generation  hence  the 
present-day  attacks  upon  the  Old  Testament  will 
be  equally  discredited.  Meanwhile,  however,  they 
must  be  reckoned  with. 

But  while  these  attacks  cannot  be  ignored,  no 
one  surely  will  suppose  that  they  can  be  fully  dis- 
cussed in  a  brief  concluding  chapter.  My  aim  here 
is  limited  to  destructive  criticism  of  the  critics. 
I  do  not  pretend,  for  example,  to  establish  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch — that  would 
need  a  treatise  of  some  magnitude — but  the  reader 
will  here  find  proof  that  "the  critical  hypothesis" 
of  its  origin  is  untenable. 

It  is  commonly  assumed  that  these  ''assured 
results  of  modern  criticism"  are  the  outcome  of 
an  honest  and  impartial  examination  of  the  text 
by  Hebrew  scholars,  whereas  in  fact  the  critics 
began  with  the  ''results,"  and  all  their  labours  have 
been  directed  to  the  task  of  finding  facts  and  argu- 
ments to  justify  them. 

Rationalism  gained  such  an  ascendency  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  that  it  well 
nigh  swamped  the  Christianity  of  Germany.  And 
Eichhorn,  "the  founder  of  Old  Testament  criticism," 
took  up  the  task  of  "winning  back  the  educated 
classes  to  religion."  ^  To  accomplish  this  it  was 
necessary  to  bring  the  Bible  down  to  the  level  of 
a  purely  human  book,  and  therefore  every  feature 
savouring  of  what  is  called  "the  supernatural"  had 
to  be  eliminated.  All  miracles  had,  of  course,  to  be 
got  rid  of.     But  the  only  element  of  real  Higher 

1  Prof.  Cbeyne's  Founders  of  Old  Testament  Criticism. 
121 


A  Doubter'' s  Doiibts  about  Science  and  Religion 

Criticism  in  the  business  was  Astruc's  discovery, 
made  in  the  year  of  Eichhorn's  birth,  that  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis  are  possibly  ''mosaic"  in  the 
secondary  sense  of  that  term,  and  that  they  incor- 
porated documents  of  an  earlier  era. 

Astruc's  theory,  however,  has  no  bearing  upon 
the  issue  here  involved.  For  it  seems  incredible 
that  there  was  no  written  revelation  before  the 
epoch  of  the  Exodus;  and  if  such  a  revelation  ex- 
isted, we  should  naturally  expect  to  find  traces  of  it 
in  Genesis.^ 

How  then  was  the  Pentateuch  to  be  discredited? 
One  scheme  after  another  was  broached,  as  suc- 
ceeding generations  of  critics  faced  the  problem; 
and  that  which  at  last  gained  acceptance  was  that 
the  books  were  literary  forgeries  of  the  Exilic  Era. 
But  let  it  be  kept  clearly  in  view  that  these  various 
theories  were  not  the  outcome  of  honest  inquiry. 
One  and  all,  they  were  devised  to  sustain  the  fore- 
gone conclusion  which  rendered  them  necessary. 
And  that  conclusion  rests  on  no  better  foundation 
than  a  few  isolated  and  perverted  texts.  Chief 
among  these  is  the  statement  that  in  Josiah's  reign 
"the  book  of  the  law"  was  found  in  the  Temple — 
not  a  very  strange  discovery,  seeing  that  the  law 
itself  ordered  it  to  be  kept  there  V 

But,  it  will  be  said,  this  implies  that  our  Chris- 
tian scholars  have  lent  themselves  to  what  is  on 
the  face  of  it  a  fraud?    By  no  means.     The  whole 

*  Chap.  VII.,  ante,  deals  with  the  cosmogony  of  Moses. 

2  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14  cf.  Deut.  xxxi.  26.  It  was  not  "a  book  of 
the  law"  as  in  A.V.,  but  the  book,  the  known  record  of  "the  law  of  the 
Lord  given  by  Moses,'  but  neglected  and  forgotten  during  the  apos- 
tasy of  Manasseh's  long  and  evil  reign. 

122 


The  Higher  Criticism 


business  is  German  from  first  to  last.  Our  own 
scholars  have  not  contributed  one  iota  to  the 
''Higher  Criticism."  The  only  ''independent  work" 
done  by  them  has  been  to  check  and  verify  the 
labours  of  the  Germans,  and  this  they  have  done, 
of  course,  with  skill  and  care.  And  as  the  result 
they  assure  us  that  in  their  judgment  the  case  has 
been  established  against  the  Mosaic  Books. ^ 

"But,"  some  one  will  exclaim,  "is  not  this  an 
end  of  controversy  in  the  matter?"  One  might 
have  supposed  that  the  egregious  fallacy  here 
involved  would  be  apparent  to  all  thoughtful  peo- 
ple. For  it  assumes  that  anything  supported  by 
a  clear  and  complete  case  must  be  true.  But  no 
one  who  is  brought  before  a  court  of  justice,  either 
in  a  civil  action  or  on  a  criminal  charge,  is  ever 
required  to  open  his  lips  in  his  defence  unless  a 
clear  and  complete  case  is  established  against  him — 
such  a  case  as  must,  if  unanswered,  lead  to  a  hos- 
tile verdict.  And  the  object  of  a  trial  is  to  sift 
that  case  and  to  hear  what  is  to  be  said  upon  the 
other  side.  "Critic"  is  Greek  for  judge,  but  the 
"Higher  Critics,"  like  the  Dreyfus  tribunal,  took 
the  place  of  prosecutors ;  and  beginning  with  a 
hostile  verdict,  they  then  set  to  work  to  justify  it. 
This  is  not  rhetoric  but  fact.  It  was  essential  to 
their  purpose  to  prove  that  the  Bible  is  purely 
human.  And  therefore,  as  no  one  would  believe  in 
miracles  if  unsupported  by  contemporary  evidence, 
the  Pentateuch  was  assigned  to  the  era  of  the 
Captivity. 

^  See   Prof.  Driver's  Introduction,  p.  xiv. 
123 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

The  main  ground  on  which  this  scheme  found 
acceptance  with  Christian  scholars  is  now  dis- 
carded as  a  blunder.  It  was  deemed  to  be 
impossible  that  such  a  literature  could  have  orig- 
inated in  an  age  which  was  supposed  to  be 
barbarous.  And  until  recent  years  the  question 
was  solemnly  discussed  whether  the  art  of  writing 
prevailed  in  the  Mosaic  age.  But  to-day  it  is  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge  that  long  before'  the 
time  of  Moses  literature  flourished ;  and  archaeo- 
logical discovery  tells  us  that  "in  the  century  before 
the  Exodus  Palestine  was  a  land  of  books  and 
schools."  ^ 

But  further.  The  idea  was  scouted  that  such 
a  code  of  laws  could  have  been  framed  at  such 
an  early  period.  Recently,  however,  the  spade  of 
the  explorer  unearthed  the  now  famous  code  of 
Hammurabi,  who  ruled  in  Babylon  four  centuries 
before  the  Exodus.  And  this  discovery  under- 
mined the  very  foundations  of  ''the  critical  hypo- 
thesis." But  instead  of  repenting  of  their  error  and 
folly,  the  critics  turned  round,  and  with  amazing 
effrontery  declared  that  the  Mosaic  code  was  bor- 
rowed from  Babylon.  This  is  a  most  reasonable 
conclusion  on  the  part  of  those  who  regard  the 
Mosaic  law  as  a  purely  human  code.  But  here 
the  critic  is  "hoist  with  his  own  petard."  For  if 
the  Mosaic  law  were  based  on  the  Hammurabi 
code,  it  could  not  have  been  framed  in  the  days 
of  Josiah  long  ages  after  Hammurabi  had  been 
forgotten.     This   Hammurabi   discovery   is   one   of 

1  Prof.  Sayce  in  Lex  Mosaica  (p.  9). 

124 


The  Higher  Criticism 


the  many  that  led  Professor  Sayce  to  declare  that 
"the  answer  of  archaeology  to  the  theories  of  mod- 
ern "criticism"  is  complete :  the  Law  preceded  the 
Prophets,  and  did  not  follow  them."  ^ 

But  even  this  is  not  all.  It  is  a  canon  of  ''criti- 
cism" with  these  men  that  no  Biblical  statement 
is  ever  to  be  accepted  unless  confirmed  by  some 
pagan  authority ;  Genesis  xiv.  was  therefore  dis- 
missed as  fable  on  account  of  its  naming  Amraphel 
as  a  King  of  Babylon.  But  Amraphel  is  only 
another  form  of  the  name  of  Hammurabi,  who  now 
stands  out  as  one  of  the  great  historical  characters 
of  the  past.- 

''His  nonsense  suited  their  nonsense,"  was  the 
explanation  Charles  H.  offered  of  the  popularity 
of  a  certain  preacher  with  his  flock.  And  the  clap- 
trap by  which  the  minor  prophets  of  this  cult 
commend  it  to  the  ignorant  multitude  may  be 
dismissed  in  similar  fashion.  To  trade  on  prejudice, 
however,  is  not  my  method.  The  case  against  the 
Pentateuch  shall  be  stated  in  the  words  of  a  scholar 
and  teacher  whose  name  and  fame  stand  high  in 
the  Universities  of  Christendom — I  refer  to  Pro- 
fessor Driver  of  Oxford.  Here  is  his  summary  of 
the  critics'  case  against  the  Mosaic  books,  as  for- 
mulated in  his  great  work  The  Infrodtiction  to  the 
Literature  of  the  Old  Testament: — 

"We  can  only  argue  upon  grounds  of  probability 
derived  from  our  view  of  the  progress  of  the  art 
of   writing,   or   of   literary   composition,   or   of   the 

1  Mon.  Facts  and  H.  C.  Fancies,  p.  83. 

2  "  'Ammurapi  ilu'  is  letter  for  letter  the  'Amraphel'  of  Genesis," 
Mon  Facts  and  H.   C.  Fancies,  p.   60. 


125 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

rise  and  growth  of  the  prophetic  tone  and  feeling 
in  ancient  Israel,  or  of  the  period  at  which  the  tra- 
ditions contained  in  the  narratives  might  have  taken 
shape,  or  of  the  probability  that  they  would  have 
been  written  down  before  the  impetus  given  to 
culture  by  the  monarchy  had  taken  effect,  and 
similar  considerations,  for  estimating  most  of 
which,  though  plausible  arguments  on  one  side  or 
the  other  may  be  advanced,  a  standard  on  which 
we  can  confidently  rely  scarcely  admits  of  being 
fixed"  (sixth  ed.,  p.  123). 

'Tlausible  arguments"  and  ''grounds  of  proba- 
bility": such  are  the  foundations  on  which  rest 
"the  assured  results  of  modern  criticism"!  But 
even  if  the  critics'  position  were  as  strong  as  it  is 
feeble,  we  could  call  a  witness  whose  unaided  testi- 
mony would  suffice  to  destroy  it.  I  refer  to  the 
Samaritan  Bible.  And  here  again  their  case  shall 
be  stated  by  one  of  themselves,  a  writer  whom  they 
hold  in  the  highest  honour,  the  late  Professor  Rob- 
ertson Smith.  In  the  judgment  of  the  Samaritans 
he  tells  us,  ''Not  only  the  temple  of  Zion,  but  the 
earlier  temple  of  Shiloh  and  the  priesthood  of  Eli, 
were  schismatical."  And  yet,  he  adds,  "their  relig- 
ion was  built  on  the  Pentateuch  alone."  Where 
then,  and  when,  did  they  get  the  Pentateuch?  Here 
is  the  critics'  account  of  it : — 

"They  [the  Samaritans]  regard  themselves  as 
Israelites,  descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  claim 
to  possess  the  orthodox  religion  of  Moses.  .  .  . 
The  priestly  law,  which  is  throughout  based  on 
the  practice  of  the  priests  in  Jerusalem  before  the 

126 


The  Higher  Criticism 


Captivity,  was  reduced  to  form  after  the  Exile, 
and  was  published  by  Ezra  as  the  law  of  the  rebuilt 
temple  of  Zion.  The  Samaritans  must  therefore 
have  derived  their  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews  after 
Ezra's  reforms." 

Now  mark  what  this  implies.  We  know  the 
bitterness  of  racial  and  religious  quarrels.  And 
both  these  elements  combined  to  alienate  the 
Samaritans  from  the  Jews.  But  this  was  not  all. 
At  the  very  time  when  they  are  said  to  have 
''derived  their  Pentateuch  from  the  Jews"  these 
antipathies  had  deepened  into  hatred — "abhorrence" 
is  Robertson  Smith's  word — on  account  of  the  con^ 
tempt  and  sternness  with  which  the  Jews  spurned 
their  proffered  help  in  the  work  of  reconstruction 
at  Jerusalem.  And  yet  we  are  asked  to  believe 
that  in  such  circumstances,  and  at  that  time,  when 
their  feelings  toward  the  Jews  were  such  as  now- 
adays Orangemen  bear  to  "Papists,"  they  accepted 
these  Jewish  books  as  their  "Bible,'  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  writings,  not  only  of  their  own  Israelite  seers, 
but  also  of  those  sacred  and  venerated  historical 
books  known  as  "the  former  prophets." 

In  the  whole  range  of  controversy,  religious  or 
secular,  was  there  ever  propounded  a  theory  more 
utterly  incredible  and  preposterous !  What  have 
the  critics  to  say  for  it?  Here  is  the  defence  they 
offer  in  the  new  volume  of  the  accredited  handbook 
of  their  heresies — Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible : — 

"There  is  at  least  one  valid  ground  for  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Pentateuch  was  first  accepted  by 
the  Samaritans  after  the  Exile.    Why  was  their  re- 

127 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

quest  to  be  allowed  to  take  part  in  the  building  of 
the  second  temple  refused  by  the  heads  of  the  Jeru- 
salem community?  Very  probably  because  the 
Jews  were  aware  that  the  Samaritans  did  not  as  yet 
possess  the  Law-book.  It  is  hard  to  suppose  that 
otherwise  they  would  have  met  with  this  refusal. 
Further,  any  one  who,  like  the  present  writer,  re- 
gards the  modern  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  as 
essentially  correct,  has  a  second  decisive  reason  for 
adopting  the  above  view."  (Prof.  Konig's  article, 
^'Samaritan  Pentateuch,"  p.  68.) 

The  question  is,  When  and  how  did  the  Samari- 
tans get  the  Pentateuch?  A  ''valid  ground"  for 
the  critical  theory,  we  are  told,  is  that  "very  prob- 
ably, the  reason  why  the  Jews  under  Ezra  refused 
their  help  was  because  they  had  not  then  got  the 
forged  books,  and  it  is  ''hard  to  suppose"  anything 
else!  But  the  "decisive  reason"  for  accepting  the 
critical  hypothesis  is  that  the  critical  hypothesis  is 
"essentially  correct" !  Men  of  common  sense  will 
"very  probably"  conclude  that  if  "the  modern  criti- 
cism of  the  Pentateuch"  can  be  supported  only  by 
such  drivel  as  this,  it  may  be  dismissed  as  unworthy 
of  discussion. 

The  fetich  of  "modern  criticism"  seems  to  have 
a  sinister  influence  even  on  scholars  of  eminence. 
The  Samaritan  Bible  is  conclusive  proof  that  the 
"critical  hypothesis"  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  absolutely  untenable.  And  its  acceptance  by 
the  Higher  Critics  is  proof  of  their  utter  incapacity 
for  dealing  with  evidence. 

And  this  leads  me  to  say  with  emphasis  that 
the  grounds  on  which  these  men  claim  the  "Higher 

128 


The  Higher  Criticism 


Criticism"  as  their  own  peculiar  province  are  as 
futile  as  are  their  arguments  in  its  support.  The 
language  of  the  incriminated  books  has  very  little 
bearing  on  the  issues  involved ;  and  in  the  case  of 
the  Pentateuch  its  testimony  is  against  the  critics. 
The  problems  of  the  controversy  fall  within  the 
sphere,  not  of  philology,  but  of  evidence.  And  this 
being  so,  a  Professor  of  Theology  or  of  Hebrew, 
as  such,  has  no  special  fitness  for  dealing  with  them. 
*'As  such"  I  say,  for  of  course  a  knowledge  of 
languages  and  of  Biblical  literature  is  not  a  dis- 
qualification. But  experience  abundantly  proves 
that  the  pursuit  of  studies  of  that  character  creates 
no  fitness  for  handling  problems  of  evidence ;  and 
these  should  be  left  to  men  who  by  training  and 
practical  experience  are  qualified  for  the  task. 

Proofs  of  this,  both  numerous  and  striking,  might 
be  culled  from  the  controversy  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  But  I  have 
published  so  much  on  that  subject  elsewhere,  that 
I  will  not  introduce  it  here.^  And  other  books, 
moreover,  will  furnish  further  illustrations  of  my 
statement.  Take  the  *'two  Isaiahs"  figment,  for 
example.  There  is  no  element  of  profanity  in  this 
hypothesis,  and  we  can  afiford  to  examine  it  on  its 
merits.     What  does  it  involve? 

Having  regard  to  the  scathing  denunciations  of 
the  national  religion  which  abound  in  the  earlier 
portions  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  it  would  not  be 
strange  if  their  author's  name  had  been  deliberately 
efifaced   from   the   national   annals.     But  the   later 

*  But    see    Appendix,    Note    II. 

129 


A  Doubter'' s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

chapters,  attributed  by  the  critics  to  Isaiah  II.,  are 
not  only  marked  by  extraordinary  brilliancy,  but 
they  abound  in  words  of  cheer  and  hope  and  joy, 
unparalleled  in  all  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  A 
prophet  raised  up  in  the  dark  days  of  the  exilic 
period  to  deliver  such  messages  of  comfort  and 
gladness  would  have  become  immortal.  His  name 
would  have  been  enshrined  with  those  of  Moses 
and  Samuel  and  David  and  Ezra,  and  his  fame 
would  have  been  blazoned  on  many  a  page  of 
apocryphal  literature.  But  the  critics  ask  us  to 
stultify  ourselves  by  believing  that  he  appeared  and 
vanished  like  a  summer  mist,  without  leaving  even 
the  vaguest  tradition  of  his  personality  or  career. 
There  is  no  limit  to  the  credulity  of  sham 
scepticism ! 

The  aim  of  the  "Higher  Criticism"  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  banish  God  from  the  Bible.  The 
Rationalists,  therefore,  invented  a  sham  Isaiah  in 
order  to  oust  the  element  of  Divine  prophecy  from 
the  writings  of  the  real  Isaiah.  But  the  invention 
of  a  sham  Jonah  would  not  have  got  rid  of  the 
whale,  so  the  Book  of  Jonah  had  to  be  torn  out 
of  the  Bible  altogether.  A  serious  matter  this ;  for 
"Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  the  third  day, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,"  and  the  Book  of  Jonah 
was  the  only  Scripture  to  which  the  Lord  Himself 
appealed  in  this  connection.  He  placed  it  in  the 
foreground  of  His  testimony,  using  it  again  and 
again  with  the  greatest  emphasis  and  solemnity. 
In  the  day  of  judgment.  He  declared,  the  men  of 
Nineveh  would  rise  up  to  condemn  the  Jews  for 

130 


The  Higher  Criticism 


their  rejection  of  Him,  because  they  repented  at 
the  preaching  of  Jonah  when  the  prophet  came  to 
them  accredited  by  the  "sign"  of  his  deliverance 
from  death. ^ 

Some  of  the  critics  dismiss  this  reference  to  Jonah 
by  attributing  it  to  the  Lord's  deplorable  ignorance 
of  the  Scriptures  which  it  was  His  Divine  mission 
to  fulfil;  others,  by  representing  it  as  merely  a 
rhetorical  illustration.  This  latter  view  is  not  so 
profane  as  the  other;  but  it  is  wholly  inadequate, 
and  moreover  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  plain  state- 
ments of  the  Gospel  narrative.^ 

The  rationalist  denies  the  Jonah  miracle,  because 
he  holds  miracles  to  be  impossible.  But  why  should 
a  Christian  reject  it?  Why  should  we  refuse  to 
believe  that  God  delivered  His  prophet  from  death? 
To  say  He  could  not  deliver  him  is  atheism;  to  say 
He  would  not  is  nonsense ;  and  to  say  He  did  not 
is  to  pour  contempt  on  the  words  of  our  Divine 
Lord,  and  to  repudiate  His  authority  as  a  teacher. 
And  this,  and  nothing  less  than  this,  the  critics 
demand  of  us. 

Men  who  plan  elaborate  crimes  are  apt  to  give 
themselves  away  by  some  glaring  oversight  or 
blunder;  and  so  is  it  with  these  critics  who  would 
commit  the  supreme  crime  of  filching  the  Bible 
from  us.  They  admit,  for  it  cannot  be  disputed, 
that  the  Lord  accredited  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in 

1  Matt.   xii.   39-41. 

2  The  Bible  must  not  be  held  responsible  for  the  unwise  things  writ- 
ten in  its  defence.  The  statement,  ex.  gr.,  that  "God  prepared  a  great 
fish"  does  not  mean  that  He  extemporised  a  sea  monster.  It  is  the 
word  used  in  Dan.  i.  5,  when  Nebuchadnezzar  appointed  a  daily  pro- 
vision for  Daniel.  I  have  dealt  with  the  subject  in  The  Bible  and 
Modern  Criticism,  chap.  xi. 

131 


A  Doubter* s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

the  most  unequivocal  and  solemn  terms.  But  they 
dare  to  aver  that  in  the  ministry  of  His  humiliation 
He  was  so  entirely  subject  to  the  limitations  of 
human  knowledge,  that  words  which  He  declared 
to  be  not  His  own,  but  the  Father's  who  sent  Him, 
expressed  in  fact  "the  current  Jewish  notions"  of 
the  time.  But  such  is  the  blindness  or  obliquity 
with  which  they  read  the  Scriptures,  that  they  have 
entirely  overlooked  His  post-resurrection  ministry. 
Kcnosis  theories  are  but  dust  thrown  up  to  obscure 
the  issue.  They  have  no  relevancy  here.  "I  have 
a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,"  the  Lord  exclaimed, 
"and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished!" 
But  now,  that  baptism  is  past.  All  limitations  are 
for  ever  at  an  end.  And  speaking  as  the  Son  of 
God,  to  whom  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  has 
been  given.  He  adopts  and  confirms  all  His  pro 
vious  teaching  about  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
Referring  to  that  very  teaching,  He  addresses  words 
like  these  to  His  disciples:  "These  are  the  words 
which  I  spake  unto  you  while  I  was  yet  with  you, 
that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in 
the  Psalms,  concerning  Me." 

And  the  record  adds,  "Then  opened  He  their 
understanding  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriptures."  Professor  Driver  tells  us  that  "He 
accepted  as  the  basis  of  His  teaching  the  opinions 
respecting  the  Old  Testament  current  around 
Him."  Or,  as  his  Bible  Dictionary  coarsely 
phrases  it,  "He  held  the  current  Jewish  notions" 
of   His  time.     Could  any  words  be   more  utterly 

132 


The  Higher  Criticism 


opposed  to  fact?  "Current  Jewish  notions"!  All 
His  teaching  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  deep, 
strong  current  of  prevailing  ignorance  and  error 
respecting  the  character  and  scope  of  these  very 
Scriptures.  Therefore  it  was  that  the  Jews  rejected 
Him.  Therefore  it  was  that  even  His  own  disciples 
failed  to  understand  Him.  But  now  *'He  opened 
their  understanding."  And  it  was  this  post-resur- 
rection teaching  which  guided  and  inspired  all  their 
after-ministry.  The  New  Testament  writings  are 
the  unfolding  of  it.  And  yet,  according  to  the 
"Higher  Critics,"  this  was  all  a  blunder,  if  not  a 
fraud. 

The  Christian  is  consistent  in  his  faith  and  the 
rationalist  in  his  unbelief.  Both  are  entitled  to 
respect,  for  either  position  is  intellectually  unas- 
sailable. But  what  shall  be  said  of  men  who  cling 
to  an  edifice  the  foundations  of  which  they  have 
themselves  destroyed?  What  of  the  superstition 
which  holds  that  though  Christ  and  His  Apostles 
were  deceived  and  in  error,  the  Church  which  they 
founded  is  infallible,  and  that  its  teaching  affords 
a  sure  resting-place  for  faith?  What  of  the  folly 
which  deludes  itself  by  claptrap  about  the  inspira- 
tion of  writings  which  are  declared  to  be  a  mosaic 
of  myth  and  legend  and  forgery  and  falsehood?^ 
The  devout  may  well  be  shocked  by  the  profanity 

1  These  words  are  not  aimed  at  the  rationalists,  represented  by  Pro- 
fessor Harnack  of  Berlin,  or  Professor  Cheyne  of  Oxford  and  his 
colleagues  of  the  Encyc\opaed^a  BxbUca.  .  Nor  do  they  apply  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  whose  claim  to  be  the  infallible  exponent  of  an  m- 
fallible  Bible  is  at  least  intelligent  and  consistent.  But  they  accurately 
describe  the  position  of  Professor  Driver  and  his  followmg.  whose 
"confession  of  unfaith"  is  the  Bible  DxcUonary  btUl  more  definitely 
do  they  apply  to  the  Bishop  of  Birmingham  and  his  Lux  Mundt  school. 

133 


A  Doubter* s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

of  such  a  scheme.  But  all  sensible  men  will  appre- 
ciate the  folly  of  attempting  to  reconcile  it  with 
belief  in  Christianity. 

To  the  rationalist  it  is  a  matter  of  indifiference 
whether  the  books  of  the  Bible  were  written  at 
one  time  or  at  another;  but  it  is  essential  to  his 
position  to  destroy  their  claim  to  be  Divine.  And 
even  this  is  but  an  outwork:  his  main  objective 
is  the  citadel  of  the  Christian  faith — the  Deity  of 
Christ.  For  if  the  Scriptures  be  discredited,  the 
foundations  of  the  Lord's  ministry  ''are  swept  away, 
so  that  Christ  came  to  fulfil  nothing,  and  becomes 
only  a  teacher  or  a  martyr."  ^  And  how  can  we 
trust  Him  even  as  a  teacher  if  His  teachings  be 
unreliable  in  the  only  sphere  in  which  we  are  com- 
petent to  test  it.  For  no  amount  of  sophistry  can 
get  rid  of  the  fact  that  He  accredited  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  unreservedly  identified  Himself 
with  them.  It  is  not  a  question,  therefore,  of  super- 
stitious reverence  for  a  book — that  we  may  leave  to 
Professor  Driver  and  his  school — but  of  intelligent 
faith  in  our  Divine  Lord  and  Saviour. 

''Criticism  in  the  hands  of  Christian  scholars," 
Professor  Driver  tells  us,  "presupposes  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament."  But  criticism  in  the 
hands  of  honest  men  presupposes  nothing.  It 
enters  on  its  task  without  prejudice,  and  accepts 
its  results  without  fear,  whatever  they  may  be. 
And  the  legitimate  results  of  this  sort  of  criticism 
of  Scripture  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of 
great   thinkers   like    Dr.    Harnack,   and   not   in   the 

1  Alford  on  Matt.  v.   18.       See  Appendix,   Note  III.  t>osi. 

134 


The  Higher  Criticism 


books  of  men  whose  minds  are  warped  or  blinded 
by  the, superstitions  of  religion. 

In  the  ''New  Theology"  of  the  day,  which  is 
but  a  crude  and  popular  phase  of  Dr.  Harnack's  Neo- 
Christianity  the  ''Higher  Criticism"  has  produced 
the  results  intended  by  its  authors.  Christianity 
has  been  dragged  down  to  the  rationalistic  level. 
And  at  what  a  cost !  Instead  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  whose  words  were  God-given 
and  eternal,  we  have  a  "Jesus"  whose  teaching  was 
marred  by  ignorance  and  error,  albeit  he  demanded 
acceptance  of  it  as  Divine.  Infidelity  has  thus 
achieved  its  triumph.  In  disparaging  the  Bible, 
they  deny  the  Christ  of  whom  the  Bible  speaks. 

"The  Christ  of  ages  past 
Is  now  the  Christ  no  more! 
Altar  and  fire  are  gone, 
The  Victim  but  a  dream ! 

"If  these  conclusions  be  demanded  by  irrefutable 
fact,  let  them  be  made  and  accepted — but  not  light- 
heartedly,  and  as  if  we  were  the  freer  for  them, 
and  could  talk  glibly  about  them  in  the  best  modern 
style.  Let  us  make  them  with  a  groan,  and  take 
care  to  carve  no  more  the  unauthentic  promise  on 
the  tombs  of  our  beloved."  ^  Or,  to  express  these 
thoughts  in  still  plainer  terms,  if  the  rationalists 
have  proved  their  case,  let  us  be  done  with  all  cant 
and  superstition,  and  frankly  and  honestly  give  up 
belief  in  the  Deity  of  Christ. 

Here  we  stand  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  Hon- 
est and  clear-headed  men  of  the  world,  to  whom 

1  The   Bishop  of  Durham,   in   his  Preface  to   The  Bible  and  Modern 
Crtttcism. 

135 


A  Doubter's  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

these  pages  are  addressed,  will  refuse  all  by-patlis 
of  superstition,  and  fearlessly  make  choice  between 
a  firmer  faith  and  a  bolder  unbelief.  And  my  main 
purpose  will  be  satisfied  if  they  here  find  proof  that 
those  who  attack  the  Bible,  whether  from  the  stand- 
point of  a  false  science  or  of  a  false  criticism,  can  be 
met  and  refuted  on  their  own  ground.  But  while 
destructive  criticism  has  thus  been  my  aim  and 
method,  I  would  fain  hope  that  some  at  least  who 
may  read  this  'Tlea  for  the  Faith"  will  be  led  to 
study  the  Scriptures  for  themselves,  with  minds 
unbiassed  by  infidel  prejudice  or  religious  super- 
stition, and  that  the  study  may  lead  them  to  believe 
in  the  Son  of  God,  and  in  believing  to  receive  life 
through  His  name. 


136 


KppmUx 

NOTE  I. 

(Chap.  VII.  p.  79  ante.) 

The  Creation. 

As  already  noticed,  if  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  speaks  of 
"the  Creation  of  the  Universe"  at  all  it  is  in  the  first  verse. 
The  very  word  "create"  is  not  used  again  save  in  verses 
21  and  27,  which  relate  to  the  work  of  the  fifth  and  sixth 
"days."  And  if  the  truth  of  evolution  could  be  scientifically 
established,  the  evolutionist  might  appeal  to  the  language 
of  verses  11,  20,  and  24  as  affording  proof  that  it  has 
biblical  sanction.  And  the  word  rendered  "create"  has  as 
wide  a  range  of  meaning  as  its  English  equivalent.  Neither 
in  Hebrew  nor  in  English  does  the  word  necessarily  connote 
a  making  out  of  nothing.  Just  as  counters  may  represent 
different  values  at  different  times,  so  is  it  with  words;  for 
words  are  only  counters.  And  we  need  to  keep  this  in  view 
as  we  read  Gen,  i.  and  ii.  For  instance,  we  are  told  that 
God  created  man,  and  yet  that  He  made  him  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  earth. 

Gen.  i.  1  is  almost  always  read  as  though  "created"  were 
the  emphatic  word  in  the  verse.  But  in  the  Hebrew  the 
structure  of  the  sentence  throws  the  emphasis  on  God;  and 
the  Massorah  intensifies  this  by  inserting  the  Athnah,  or 
pause  mark,  after  the  Divine  name.  The  burden  of  the 
first  verse  is  that  God  was  the  Creator.  The  second  verse 
tells  that  at  the  time  of  which  the  narrative  speaks  the  earth 
existed  in  a  condition  of  desolation  and  emptiness.  But 
Isa.  xlv.  18  declares  that  this  was  not  its  condition  according 
to  the  design  of  its  maker.  Of  its  earlier  history  we  know 
nothing,    save   what   geology   may   teach    us;    but   the    sequel 

1  The  Coming  Prince  (Sth  and  later  editions) ;  and  Daniel  in  the 
Critics'  Den    (2nd    edition). 

137 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

describes   the   refitting  and   refurnishing  of  the  planet   as   a 
home  for  the  Adam  race. 

Our  English  version  suggests  that  the  heavenly  bodies  came 
into  existence  on  the  fourth  day;  and  this,  combined  with  the 
figment  that  they  are  mere  satellites,  has  been  seized  on  by 
infidels  to  discredit  Scripture.  But  we  must  insist  that  the 
same  canon  by  which  all  other  writings  are  construed  shall 
prevail  in  scriptural  exegesis,  viz.,  that  when  words  bear 
different  meanings,  that  meaning  is  to  be  accepted  which 
is  consistent  with  the  context  and  with  known  facts.  And, 
as  we  have  seen.  Gen.  i.  14-18  may  be  the  description  of 
phenomena.  My  purpose  here,  however,  is  not  to  expound 
the  Scripture,  but  merely  to  enter  a  protest  against  confound- 
ing what  Genesis  says  with  what  men  say  about  it. 


NOTE  11. 

(Chap.  XII.  p.  125  «;//£-.) 

The  Book  of  Daniel. 

Professor  Driver's  Book  of  Daniel  ("Cambridge  Bible" 
series),  which  is  an.  expansion  of  the  "Daniel"  section  of  his 
Introduction,  reproduces  the  farrago  of  "errors"  and  argu- 
ments which  were  formulated  by  Bertholdt  just  a  century  ago, 
and  have  been  the  stock-in-trade  of  the  rationalists  ever  since. 
Archaeological  discoveries  have  disposed  of  most  of  them, 
but  still  they  serve  their  purpose.  I  have  dealt  with  them 
elsewhere  fully  and  in  detail.^  And  even  if  they  were  all  as 
weighty  as  most  of  them  are  frivolous,  the  Christian  would 
brush  them  aside  in  view  of  the  fulfilled  prophecy  of  "the 
Seventy  Weeks,"  and  the  fact  that  the  book  has  been  accre- 
dited by  Christ. 

The  presence  of  Greek  words  in  Daniel,  we  are  told, 
"demands"  a  date  for  the  book  after  Alexander's  conquests. 
In  Bertholdt's  day  the  presence  of  Greek  words  in  Daniel  did 
seem  to  "demand"  a  late  date  for  the  book;  for  it  was  then 
supposed  that  there  were  ten  such  words,  and  that  there  was 

138 


Appe7idix 


no  intercourse  between  ancient  Babylon  and  Greece.  But  in 
view  of  the  discoveries  of  the  last  century,  the  now  admitted 
fact  that  the  Greek  words  in  Daniel  are  not  ten,  but  only  tivo, 
and  these  the  names  of  musical  instruments,  the  rejection  of 
the  book  on  philological  grounds  is  in  part  an  anachronism 
and  in  part  a  puerility, 

A  like  remark  applies  to  his  list  of  "historical  errors." 
When  I  last  reissued  my  Daniel  in  the  Critics'  Den, 
Darius  the  Mede  was  the  only  "historical  difficulty" 
which  seemed  to  remain  unsolved.  But  there  appears 
to  be  no  longer  any  doubt  that  this  Darius  was  Gobryas, 
Governor  of  Kurdistan,  the  General  who  commanded  the 
army  of  Cyrus  that  captured  Babylon.  Gobryas  was  the 
son  of  Cyaxeres  (Ahasuerus  in  the  Hebrew)  and  the  brother 
and  heir  apparent  of  Astyages,  the  last  King  of  the  Medes. 
(Xenophon  calls  him  his  son,  in  error,  for  Herodotus  states 
that  Astyages  had  no  son.)  In  his  youth  he  would  have 
known  Cyrus,  who  attended  the  Median  Court;  and  this, 
combined  with  the  fact  of  his  kingly  rank,  may  well  have  led 
Cyrus  to  trust  and  honour  him.  "Darius"  was  doubtless  a 
"throne  name"  (like  "Artaxerxes."  Josephus  mentions  that 
he  had  another  name  among  the  Greeks).  A  most  striking 
confirmation  of  this  is  supplied  by  a  statement  in  Ezra  vi.  1,  2. 
The  decree  issued  by  Cyrus  for  the  building  of  the  temple, 
which  could  not  be  found  either  in  the  Chaldean  or  the 
Persian  capital,  was  at  last  discovered  in  the  capital  of 
Kurdistan.  How,  then,  could  it  have  got  to  Ecbatana?  The 
obvious  solution  of  this  enigma  is  that,  for  some  reason  or 
other,  Gobryas  was  sent  back  to  his  own  province,  and  that 
he  carried  with  him  the  archives  of  his  rule  in  Babylon.  The 
language  of  Daniel  ix.  1  clearly  indicates  that  he  was  a  vassal 
king  (he  "was  made  king  over  the  realm.") 

The  most  important  item  in  "the  errors  of  Daniel"  is  the 
opening  statement  of  the  book,  that  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged  and  took  Jerusalem.  But 
the  ground  on  which  this  is  rejected  as  a  blunder  is  itself  a 
blunder  so  grotesque  that   it  deserves  more  than  a  passing 

notice. 

139 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

Josephus  gives  an  extract  from  the  lost  history  of  Berosus, 
which  states  that  while  on  this  expedition  Nebuchadnezzar 
received  tidings  of  his  father's  death,  and  that  "he  hastened 
home  across  the  desert."  And  blindly  following  his  German 
guides,  Professor  Driver's  gloss  on  this  is  that  the  news 
reached  him  at  Carchemish,  after  the  battle  in  which  he 
defeated  the  Egyptians,  and  that  he  returned  from  there  to 
Babylon  and  never  invaded  Judaea  at  all.  But  Carchemish 
is  on  the  Euphrates;  and  "to  hasten  home"  from  Carchemish 
to  Babylon  across  the  desert  would  be  as  extraordinary  a 
feat  as  if  Professor  Driver  hastened  home  from  London 
to  Oxford  across  the  county  of  Kent  or  Hampshire!  The 
fact  that  the  desert  lay  between  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Babylon 
is  conclusive  proof  that  in  his  homeward  journey  he  set  out 
from  Palestine. 

But  this  is  only  a  part  of  the  blunder.  The  extract  from 
Berosus,  which  Professor  Driver  quotes,  mentions  expressly 
his  Jewish  prisoners.  How  could  he  have  had  Jewish  prisoners 
if  he  had  not  invaded  Judaea?  The  Jews  were  not  a  party 
to  the  Battle  of  Carchemish.  That  battle,  moreover,  was 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  and  after  Nebuchadnezzar's 
accession  (Jer.  xlvi.  2;  cf.  xxv.  1);  whereas  the  expedition 
mentioned  by  Berosus  and  Daniel  was  in  his  third  year,  be- 
fore his  father's  death.  This,  I  may  add,  reconciles  every 
chronological  statement  in  the  various  books. 


NOTE  III. 

(Chap.  XH.  p.  134.) 

The  Old  Testament  and  the  Critics. 

As  I  wish  to  be  fair  to  my  opponents,  I  give  here  in  extenso 
the  concluding  passage  of  the  Preface  to  Professor  Driver's 
Introduction.    He  writes: — 

"It  is  objected,  however,  that  some  of  the  conclusions  of 
critics  respecting  the  Old  Testament  are  incompatible  with  the 

140 


Appendix 


authority  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and  that  in  loyalty  to  Him  we 
are  precluded  from  accepting  them.  That  our  Lord  appealed 
to  the  Old  Testament  as  the  record  of  a  revelation  in  the  past, 
and  as  pointing  forward  to  Himself,  is  undoubted;  but  these 
aspects  of  the  Old  Testament  are  perfectly  consistent  with  a 
critical  view  of  its  structure  and  growth.  That  our  Lord  in 
so  appealing  to  it  designed  to  pronounce  a  verdict  on  the 
authorship  and  age  of  its  different  parts,  and  to  foreclose  all 
future  inquiry  into  these  subjects,  is  an  assumption  for  which 
no  sufficient  ground  can  be  alleged.  Had  such  been  His  aim, 
it  would  have  been  out  of  harmony  with  the  entire  method 
and  tenor  of  His  teaching.  In  no  single  instance  (so  far  as 
we  are  aware)  did  He  anticipate  the  results  of  scientific 
inquiry  or  historical  research.  The  aim  of  His  teaching  was 
a  religious  one ;  it  was  to  set  before  men  the  pattern  of  a 
perfect  life,  to  move  them  to  imitate  it,  to  bring  them  to 
Himself.  He  accepted  as  the  basis  of  His  teaching  the  opin- 
ions respecting  the  Old  Testament  current  around  Him :  He 
assumed,  in  His  allusions  to  it,  the  premises  which  His  oppo- 
nents recognized,  and  which  could  not  have  been  questioned 
(even  had  it  been  necessary  to  question  them)  without  raising 
issues  for  which  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe,  and  which,  had 
they  been  raised,  would  have  interfered  seriously  with  the 
paramount  purpose  of  His  life.  There  is  no  record  of  the 
question  whether  a  particular  portion  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  written  by  Moses,  or  David,  or  Isaiah,  having  been  ever 
submitted  to  Him ;  and  had  it  been  so  submitted,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing  what  His  answer  would  have  been.  The 
purposes  for  which  our  Lord  appealed  to  the  Old  Testament; 
its  prophetic  significance,  and  the  spiritual  lessons  deducible 
from  it,  are  not,  as  has  been  already  remarked  above,  affected 
by  critical  inquiries.  Criticism  in  the  hands  of  Christian 
scholars  does  not  banish  or  destroy  the  inspiration  of  the 
Old  Testament — it  presupposes  it ;  it  seeks  only  to  determine 
the  conditions  under  which  it  operates,  and  the  literary  forms 
through  which  it  manifests  itself;  and  it  thus  helps  us  to 
frame  truer  conceptions  of  the  methods  which  it  pleased  God 
to   employ   in   revealing  Himself  to   His   ancient   people   of 

141 


A  Doubter^ s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 

Israel,  and  in  preparing  the  way  for  the  fuller  manifestation 
of  Himself  in  Christ  Jesus." 

I  appeal  to  all  spiritual  Christians  whether  it  is  not  a 
thorough  misrepresentation  of  the  Lord's  ministry  to  assert 
that  "the  aim  of  His  teaching  .  .  .  was  to  set  before  men 
the  pattern  of  a  perfect  life."  He  could  not  but  be  the  Great 
Exemplar,  but  this  was  purely  incidental.  His  supreme  aim 
was  to  fulfil  "all  things  which  were  written  in  the  Law  of 
Moses  and  in  the  Prophets  and  in  the  Psalms  concerning 
Himself." 

And  I  appeal  to  all  honest  men  whether  the  words  quoted 
are  not  a  flagrant  misrepresentation  of  the  question  here 
at  issue;  which  is  not  as  to  the  authorship  and  date  of 
writings  accepted  ^s  inspired  Scriptures,  but  as  to  whether 
the  Mosaic  books  be  priestly  forgeries  of  the  later  period 
of  the  Monarchy.  The  Book  of  Jeremiah  enlightens  us  as  to 
the  character  of  the  priests  of  that  era.  Against  them  it  was 
that  his  prophecies  were  mainly  directed  (see,  e.  g.,  i.  18; 
V.  31)  ;  and  the  "laity"  had  to  intervene  to  prevent  their 
murdering  him  (xxvi.  8,  16).  Yet  the  "critical  hypothesis" 
\i  that  the  books  were  concocted  by  these  miscreants! 

The  great  covenant  name  of  God  is  deemed  so  sacred  and 
held  in  such  awe  by  the  Jews  that  they  never  utter  it  even  in 
public  worship;  and  yet  in  Leviticus — the  briefest  book  of  the 
Pentateuch— it  is  used  more  than  300  times,  and  nearly 
40  times  we  find  the  solemn  formula,  "Jehovah  spake  unto 
Moses."  If  this  be  not  the  authentic  record  of  a  Divine 
revelation,  the  wanton  profanity  of  it  is  unspeakably  infamous. 
It  need  not  be  said  that  Dr.  Driver  is  incapable  of  either 
wilful  misrepresentation  or  profanity;  but  it  is  evident 
that  his  mind  is  swayed  by  the  superstitious  belief  that 
because  "the  Church"  accredits  the  whole  Bible  as  Divine  it 
is  immaterial  whether  its  contents  are  the  work  of  inspired 
prophets  or  of  apostate  priests.  Certain  it  is  that  he  and  his 
co-editors  and  writers  of  the  Bible  Dictionary  are  the  dupes 
of  "current  German  notions  respecting  the  Divine  authority 
and  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament." 

By  thus  acting  as  jackals  to  the  German  rationalists  these 

142 


Appendix 


men  have  lowered  the  standard  of  biblical  scholarship  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic.  But  infinitely  more  deplorable  is  it  that 
they  have  dethroned  the  Bible  from  the  place  it  used  to  hold 
in  every  Christian  home;  and  as  the  result  "family  worship" 
— to  use  the  good  old  term — is  fast  dying  out.  For  the 
practical  common  sense  of  the  Britisher  and  the  American 
cannot  be  deluded  by  pious  claptrap  about  the  inspiration 
of  writings  which,  if  the  "Higher  Criticism"  has  proved  its 
case,  ought  to  be  relegated  to  the  Apocrypha.  We  are  charged, 
forsooth,  with  superstitiously  clinging  to  discredited  tradi- 
tional beliefs !  My  answer  is,  first,  that  such  a  taunt  comes  ill 
from  such  a  quarter.  Both  Christian  and  Rationalist  stand 
clear  of  superstition;  but  superstition  alone  supports  the 
attempted  compromise  between  infidelity  and  faith,  which 
even  their  ally.  Professor  Cheyne,  deplores  in  this  Bible  Dic- 
tionary school  of  critics.  And  further,  "the  assured  results- 
of  modern  criticism"  will  not  bear  examination  by  any  one 
who  is  competent  to  test  them  (see  Chap,  XII.  ante).  The 
sham  "Higher  Criticism"  will  live  only  so  long  as  it  remains 
the  preserve  of  the  preacher  and  the  pundit. 

I  will  quote  in  conclusion  the  following  bold  and  honest 
words  of  Dean  Alford: — 

"It  is  important  to  observe  in  these  days  how  the  Lord  here 
includes  the  Old  Testament  and  all  its  unfolding  of  the  Divine 
purposes  regarding  Himself  in  His  teaching  of  the  citizens  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  I  say  this,  because  it  is  always  in 
contempt  and  setting  aside  of  the  Old  Testament  that  Ration- 
alism has  begun.  First  its  historical  truth,  then  its  theocratic 
dispensation  and  the  types  and  prophecies  connected  with  it, 
are  swept  away;  so  that  Christ  came  to  fulfil  nothing,  and 
becomes  only  a  teacher  or  a  martyr;  and  thus  the  way  is 
paved  for  a  similar  rejection  of  the  New  Testament — begin- 
ning with  the  narratives  of  the  birth  and  infancy  as  theocratic 
myths — advancing  to  the  denial  of  His  miracles — then  attack- 
ing the  truthfulness  of  his  own  sayings,  which  are  grounded 
on  the  Old  Testament  as  a  revelation  from  God — and  so 
finally  leaving  us  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  but,  as  a  German 

143 


A  Doubter\s  Doubts  about  Science  and  Religion 


writer  of  this  school  has  expressed  it,  'a  mythology  not  so 
attractive  as  that  of  Greece.'  That  this  is  the  course  which 
unbelief  has  run  in  Germany  should  be  a  pregnant  warning 
to  the  decriers  of  the  Old  Testament  among  ourselves.  It 
should  be  a  maxim  for  every  expositor  and  every  student 
that  Scripture  is  a  whole,  and  stands  or  falls  together." 
{Greek  Testament,  Matt.  v.  18). 


144 


DATE  DUE 

mmF^ 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  USA. 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Spee 


1    1012  01015  8840 


